[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7892-H7954]
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, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2684.

                              {time}  1245


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
consideration of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the bill 
provides new discretionary budget authority in an amount which would 
exceed the applicable allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, and therefore violates section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act.
  The most recent subcommittee allocations filed under section 302(b), 
as contained in House Report 106-288, allocate a total $68.633 billion 
in new discretionary budget authority to the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, 
and Independent Agencies. According to the scoring table from the 
Congressional Budget Office, the bill appropriates $71.632 billion in 
discretionary budget authority. Therefore, and as the CBO scoring table 
indicates, the bill exceeds its section 302(b) allocation by $2.999 
billion. A point of order, therefore, should lie against its 
consideration under section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The reason that the bill is scored as exceeding its allocation is 
that the Committee on Appropriations is apparently counting as an 
offset a $3 billion reduction in the borrowing authority of the TVA. 
This is authority for TVA to borrow from the public and has nothing to 
do with appropriations or amounts in this bill. Neither CBO nor OMB 
regard this so-called offset as producing any budget authority savings 
whatsoever. Therefore, the bill exceeds its allocation.
  I should also note a second consequence. Because OMB does not 
recognize the $3 billion supposed offset, if this bill were enacted in 
its present form, it would trigger an automatic across-the-board 
sequestration of appropriations under the Budget Enforcement Act, in 
the amount of $3 billion. That would roughly be about a billion and a 
half dollars sequestration that would be required in the Defense budget 
and about a billion and a half dollars that would be required to be 
sequestered on the domestic side of the appropriations ledger.
  Now, I recognize that the chairman of the Committee on Budget could 
produce a letter which, in essence, urges the Congress to ignore this 
financial fact, but the fact is that, if it chooses to do that, there 
will, in fact, be a sequestration under this bill. Because if we take a 
look at the OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and 
Congress for Fiscal Year 2000, we will see that, on page 11, it states: 
``Current OMB estimates of House action to date, unless offset, 
indicate that a sequester of $3.7 billion in budget authority and $2.9 
billion in outlays would be triggered.''
  The major amounts in question are related to this bill. If we take a 
look at the table sent down by the CBO on their budget analysis, on 
page 18, we will see that they report the same results.
  So, therefore, I would suggest that this bill, for reasons that I 
have cited, should not be before the House. I would certainly say that, 
even if the Committee on Budget chairman produces a letter which claims 
that this bill is not $3 billion over its authorized allocation, the 
fact is that, according to the people who are charged by law with 
actually measuring the bill, it is; and, therefore, it will result in 
the automatic reduction in the other programs that are not in this bill 
that I have just cited.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there any other Member who wishes to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I have no desire to delay this bill, and so 
I guess what I would say is that I think I have demonstrated, by 
raising the point of order, that this bill, in fact, is not in 
compliance. If the House wishes to proceed and vote for a bill which is 
going to result in the kind of massive sequestration that I have just 
indicated, then so be it. That would be the House's choice.
  So I guess I am in a position where, in order to contribute to the 
ability of the House's ability to do its business, I will withdraw the 
point of order, but I would caution every Member who intends to vote 
for this bill that, if they do so, they will in fact be imposing just 
such a sequestration on both the Defense budget and on the domestic 
programs.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1250


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the Department of Veteran Affairs 
and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House today 
H.R. 2684, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000.
  As most Members are aware, we originally expected to bring this bill 
to the floor before the August recess. However, the circumstance of the 
death of the Honorable Robert Mollohan made doing so impossible, and I 
wanted to begin today by expressing my deepest sympathy to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), my friend and colleague, 
and his family on the death of his father.
  As my colleagues all know, the senior Mr. Mollohan served so ably in 
representing West Virginia in this House for 18 years, for the 2 terms 
during the early 1950s and then for 7 consecutive terms from 1969 to 
1983. I hope and trust that the recess period has offered a time for 
reflection and healing for my good friend and his family.
  Prior to proceeding, Mr. Chairman, in discussing the bill before us, 
I would also like to offer my sincere recognition and thanks to the 
staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and assistance. As 
I have stated on numerous occasions on this floor, we, the Members of 
the House, are very fortunate to have dedicated staff willing to spend 
countless hours preparing these bills. The public is well served by all 
of our employees.
  My personal thanks to Frank Cushing, Valerie Baldwin, Tim Peterson, 
Dena Baron, and Angela Snell on the majority side, and to Del Davis and 
Lee Alman for the minority. I would also offer a special thanks to Ron 
Anderson and John Simmons and Art Jutton of my personal staff for all 
their assistance throughout this very difficult process.
  Moving now to H.R. 2684, I firmly believe that this is a good and 
fair bill. It is funded with less money overall than was provided last 
year in 1999. Indeed, to meet our commitment to stay within the 
spending levels anticipated by the 1997 Budget Agreement, we have 
trimmed $1.2 billion from the 1999 actual enacted level, $2.3 billion 
below the fiscal year 1999 CBO freeze level, and $3.4 billion from the 
President's budget request.
  Perhaps more important, Mr. Chairman, we have made these reductions 
at

[[Page H7893]]

the same time we have provided an increase of $1.7 billion, the level 
provided in the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget resolution, for VA medical 
care. This is the largest increase ever in veterans medical health 
care. It also, I might add, fully funds all expiring contracts for 
HUD's section 8 housing program.
  Moreover, although nearly every other program in this bill was funded 
at or below the 1999 level, we made a great effort to assure that 
reductions were taken judiciously to assure that only the fat, and not 
the meat, was cut from each program. This is not to suggest that many 
decisions were not difficult or painful. Several programs at NASA, for 
example, and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the National 
Science Foundation, and at HUD, to name just a few, are excellent 
programs which, if we had more resources, deserve a greater level of 
support.
  Unfortunately, putting this bill together and expecting passage is a 
tremendous balancing act, and we do not get there by playing favorites 
with a small set of programs at the expense of others. We do not get 
there merely by taking payroll money from one agency or department and 
giving it to another. We do not get there by assuming that certain 
programs are in the domain of one political party at the expense of the 
other party. For every vote one may pick up with this type of exercise 
one is likely to lose the same number.
  It was, therefore, very important for us to craft a the bill that 
first took care of the so-called special needs, specifically VA medical 
care and expiring section 8 contracts, and then look fairly at every 
other program and project with an eye to trim but not to slash.
  Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe we have accomplished that goal of 
objective fairness; and, as a result, this bill should be fully 
supported.
  In the interest of brevity, I will not run through the funding levels 
of every program in this very detailed bill. However, given the regard 
that Members have for this bill, I believe it is important to highlight 
just a few of the major program levels.
  Veterans compensation and pension benefits are fully funded. Veterans 
medical care is funded at $19 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion 
above the President's request and the 1999 level. I would repeat, this 
is the largest single-year increase ever in VA medical health.
  Veterans medical and prosthetic research is provided $326 million, a 
$10 million increase over the budget request. All other VA programs, 
except for new construction, are funded either at or above the 1999 
level.
  HUD section 8 expiring contracts are fully funded at $10.5 billion. 
Funds are sufficient to maintain the subsidy for every single current 
participant in the program. So if my colleagues hear later on that this 
is going to put people out of their homes, do not believe it. This 
program is fully funded.
  HUD's Public Housing Operating Fund, Native American Housing Block 
Grants, Housing for People with AIDS, and Housing for Special 
Populations accounts are all funded at the 1999 levels.
  While all other HUD programs have been slightly reduced, great care 
was taken to make sure that they remain viable. In other words, they 
were trimmed, but not gutted.
  EPA received a reduction from the 1999 level but is actually an 
increase over the President's request. I would repeat, this is an 
increase over the President's request for the EPA budget. I think that 
is an important statement of our party's concern for the environment. 
It is important to note that this was done to restore funding for State 
and local waste water and drinking water problems which had been 
slashed dramatically by the President.
  EPA's research programs have been funded slightly above the budget 
request while the agency's operating programs received a very modest $2 
million increase above 1999 level. All other EPA programs are more than 
adequately funded.
  Federal Emergency Management Agency operating funds have been fully 
funded, including $20 million for the pre-disaster mitigation program.
  FEMA's disaster relief program has been provided the annual 
appropriated level of $300 million as requested by the President; 
however, forward funding for expected disasters has not been included. 
These funds are subject to emergency provisions of the Budget Act; and, 
while they have not been provided at this time, I suspect that enough 
natural disasters will occur in the coming months so as to necessitate 
our appropriating some additional disaster relief funds at some point 
during fiscal year 2000 as we seem to have done every year in the 
recent past.
  For NASA, both Space Station and Shuttle programs have been 
adequately funded. The committee's approach to funding other NASA 
programs included an attempt to determine which new or planned programs 
could be delayed without doing harm to core programs. While some 
programs are canceled or deferred, most of the proposed reductions are 
in program areas where growth has been significant over the past 2 
years.
  In the aggregate, the National Science Foundation has been reduced 1 
percent below the 1999 level. However, it is important to note that NSF 
research has actually been increased by $8.5 million over the 1999 
level.

                              {time}  1300

  The only significant reduction within NSF occurs in the Major 
Research Equipment account, a $33.5 million reduction from the 1999 
level, and reflects reductions, closings or completions of projects as 
requested by the President. Because of programmatic concerns as well as 
a lack of resources, this bill does not include funds requested by the 
President to at this time construct a new terra-scale computing 
facility. It was felt within our legislative community and the 
scientific community that that could not be accomplished this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I have stated many times throughout this process that 
this is not a perfect bill. Indeed, had we had more money, I would have 
done some things differently. If this were not a product of bipartisan 
concern, I most certainly would do things differently. Nevertheless, 
this bill has been put together with the resources available to us in 
the spirit of the budget agreement most all of us agreed to, as well as 
in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and understanding.
  It is not perfect, but it is a good bill which deserves bipartisan 
support. So that we can take this House bill to conference and 
hopefully work for an even better legislative product, I urge every 
Member to support its final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the budget tables representing 
the mandatory and discretionary spending provided in H.R. 2648.

[[Page H7894]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.000



[[Page H7895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.001



[[Page H7896]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.002



[[Page H7897]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.003



[[Page H7898]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.004



[[Page H7899]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my sincere gratitude 
to the Speaker and to both the majority and minority leadership for 
their consideration of my personal circumstances regarding the passing 
of my father immediately preceding the August recess. It was a courtesy 
which I and my family certainly appreciated. Dad was honored to serve 
his constituency in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is 
gestures like this that explain why he was so honored and why I too am 
honored to serve in this body.
  I would also like to extend thanks to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) for his comments today, which were certainly appreciated, 
and for his graciously supporting my request to postpone consideration 
of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the first year for both the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) and myself in our respective roles as chairman and 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
bill, and I have been impressed by the chairman's capability and by the 
cooperation which he and his very able staff have extended to the 
minority. I am pleased to have been a part of that process, even as I 
remain concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the result that we have achieved 
to this point.
  The bill before us has enough serious shortcomings that it is now 
under a veto threat from the President. However, I know the chairman 
shares many of my concerns and is committed to addressing these 
concerns as the bill moves forward, and I look forward to working with 
him in that regard.
  Unfortunately, the bill provides inadequate funding levels in most 
major areas. Let me make clear, however, that I do not attribute these 
shortcomings to the chairman of the subcommittee. Regrettably, he was 
faced with a situation not of his own making. He has tried to do the 
best he could with the hand that he was dealt.
  The basic problem is that the majority leadership instructed the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies to produce a bill that 
cuts total spending below this year's level. As a result, the bill now 
before us provides an increase in veterans medical care but cuts most 
other agencies and programs, by small amounts in some cases and by 
large amounts in others.
  Overall, including last year's emergency funding, the bill's total 
for fiscal year 2000 is about $3 billion below fiscal year 1999; $1 
billion for emergency funding is excluded. And note that these figures 
represent reductions in actual dollar amounts, before any adjustment 
for inflation or otherwise. In terms of purchasing power, the cuts are 
even larger. How or why these limits were decided, I do not know. But I 
do know the damage that would be caused if this bill is not 
substantially changed as the process moves forward.
  Let me begin with NASA, because that agency is slated for some of the 
largest cuts. Overall, the bill reduces the budget for NASA by $1 
billion below current year spending. In short, these cuts seriously 
jeopardize our Nation's leadership in exploration and development of 
space.
  The bill makes an 11 percent cut in space science, the area that 
funds the planetary probes and space-based astronomical observatories 
that have generated so much interest and excitement over the past 
several years. It makes a 20 percent reduction in earth sciences. And 
in both areas the cuts are heavily targeted to planning for future 
missions and to development of the next generation of technology, which 
is fundamentally important to basic research.
  Over the past 5 years, NASA's budget has already been reduced by 
almost $1 billion. Simply put, the NASA budget should not be reduced 
any further. Our space programs advance human knowledge, foster 
development with wide-ranging uses, generate public interest in 
science, especially among our young people, and help us better 
understand what is happening here on Earth with our weather, our 
climate, and our environment. These cuts are not what our 
constituencies want, nor are they in the national interest.
  The second major area of concern about this bill is housing. I am 
pleased the chairman was able to provide for the renewal of all 
expiring section 8 housing contracts. However, HUD fares relatively 
poorly in many other areas and needs additional funding in the section 
8 area. We have worsening shortages of affordable housing in many parts 
of the country as the economic boom drives up rents beyond the reach of 
low-wage workers. HUD reports that more than 5 million very low-income 
families are spending more than half of their income for rent but are, 
at the same time, receiving no federal housing assistance whatsoever. 
The cuts in this bill would make that problem worse.
  Public housing would be particularly hard hit: under the bill, basic 
funding for local housing authorities is cut $515 million below the 
fiscal 1999 level. Public housing exists throughout the country in 
small and medium-sized cities as well as large ones. It provides homes 
for more than 3 million people, more than 1 million of whom are age 62 
or older.
  The cuts in this bill will mean reduced staff, more deferred 
maintenance and a growing backlog of capital needs. They threaten to 
make the good housing worse while hampering efforts to fix the bad.
  Another problem is the lack of any funding for incremental housing 
assistance vouchers. Last year, the VA-HUD bill funded 50,000 new 
housing vouchers, targeted specifically to helping families make the 
transition from welfare to work. The number of new vouchers funded by 
this bill is zero.
  I have similar concerns about the large and small cuts in a wide 
range of other HUD housing programs; CDBG, homeless assistance grants, 
housing for people with AIDS, brownfields redevelopment, and lead paint 
hazard abatement, to name a few examples. I think it is unfortunate the 
bill rejects every one of the administration's proposals to spur 
development in areas left behind in the economic boom.
  Turning to veterans, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee 
found a way to provide a $1.7 billion increase for veterans medical 
care. Although that amount falls short of the $3 billion increase that 
veterans' groups say is needed to keep up with the needs of war 
veterans, $1.7 billion is a substantial improvement. However, medical 
care is not the only area of concern at the VA.
  The bill reduces the construction accounts by more than 50 percent 
below fiscal year 1999. Failing to update and maintain aging hospitals 
and other veterans facilities will only lead to more problems later.
  Moving on to EPA, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the committee provided a 
$106 million increase above the administration's request. 
Unfortunately, that still leaves the agency $278 million below this 
year's level. Specific programs that will suffer as a result of this 
cut include the Clean Water Action Plan and the program of pesticide 
reregistration mandated by the Food Quality Protection Act.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should mention the bill's complete 
elimination of the Americorps program. This was not a choice that our 
subcommittee made, but rather one that was imposed at a later stage. 
Fundamentally, AmeriCorps gives young people an opportunity to do 
community service in exchange for a very modest stipend and help in 
financing their future education, which is just the sort of thing we 
want our young people to be doing. Can we really no longer afford the 
$400 or $500 million needed to continue this worthwhile effort?
  I might better understand all of the cuts made by this bill if we 
were in a time of fiscal crisis, Mr. Chairman. But we are not. Rather, 
we are in a period of unprecedented prosperity. The federal budget 
deficit has declined steadily every year since 1992, and last year it 
turned into a surplus for the first time in 3 decades. Every projection 
shows that surplus continuing to grow. Yet we are told by the majority 
leadership that we do not even have enough money to continue many 
programs in the VA-HUD bill at the current year's level. I find that 
incredible. If we cannot adequately meet the needs of veterans' 
programs, affordable housing, and scientific research during these 
prosperous times, then when can we?
  Even more discouraging is the fact that the majority's budget plans 
call

[[Page H7900]]

for this situation not only to continue year after year, but to 
actually get steadily worse. And here, of course, I am not referring to 
the majority on this committee but rather to the majority leadership of 
the House. The leadership's budget resolution calls for total 
appropriations for domestic programs in fiscal year 2001 to be less 
than those in fiscal year 2000. By fiscal year 2004, the resolution 
calls for domestic appropriations to have fallen by more than 20 
percent in inflation-adjusted terms. Make no mistake about it, that is 
what pays for the nearly $800 billion tax cut that was passed by the 
Congress last month.
  The vision for the future presented by that budget plan is that every 
year we do a little less; that every year our public housing gets a 
little more dilapidated; that every year we fund a little less basic 
science research; that every year the standard of medical care for our 
veterans goes down a bit; that every year the backlog of sewage 
treatment and safe drinking water needs gets a little bigger. And in 
the view of the majority's budget plan, all this is acceptable because 
it allows a huge tax cut bill to be enacted.
  This steady decline in public services is not my vision for the 
future, nor do I think it is our constituents' vision for the future 
or, indeed, the vision of many of my colleagues in this Chamber. 
However, that is the path that this Congress appears to be headed down. 
And if this bill is not fixed before it is presented to the White 
House, we will have taken another big step down that path of decline.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise today in support of the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill.
  I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), for all their hard work on this bill. The chairman and his 
very able staff were faced with a Herculean task of making this bill 
work while staying within the caps adopted by the 1997 budget 
agreement. And in the end, I think they found a good balance.
  While I am supportive of our work together on behalf of science, 
space exploration, the environment, and other programs, I specifically 
want to discuss two provisions in today's bill. The first is veterans 
medical care. Last October I signed a letter to the President, along 
with 70 Members of the House and Senate on a bipartisan basis, asking 
the President to provide an extra $1.7 billion in his fiscal year 2000 
budget submission for veterans medical care.

                              {time}  1315

  It appears that our plea fell on deaf ears. While the President sent 
his budget to Capitol Hill in February, it flatlined spending for 
veterans' medical care. In plain English, his budget did not provide 
even one extra dollar over last year's amount for veterans' medical 
care. So again it was left to Congress to provide the critical 
additional funding for veterans' medical care.
  This is not a partisan issue. Both Republicans and Democrats have 
worked together to provide money above and beyond the President's 
budget request for the past 4 years, and this year is no exception.
  However, the bottom line is that the President's flatlined request 
shows how some in his administration are out of touch with the need of 
our veterans.
  And it did not help and has not helped that the VA's leadership has 
been missing in action during this process. Our April public hearing on 
the VA's budget was an unqualified disappointment with Secretary West 
and Dr. Kizer, proving how out of touch they are with their inability 
to answer even the most basic questions before our committee and before 
the cameras.
  Fortunately, with strong bipartisan support, this year's budget 
passed by the House called for an extra $1.7 billion for veterans' 
medical care. Veterans service organizations are right to demand, at a 
bare minimum, Congress provide a $1.7 billion increase. They are also 
rightly owed a VA that actually advocates for veterans and puts 
veterans' health care needs and services above so-called managed care 
goals, which put dollar savings before patient protections.
  That is why I am pleased that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
agreed to my request and others to provide this extra funding for a 
total of $19 billion for veterans' medical care. For countless 
veterans, many older, sicker, some nearly 100 percent dependent on the 
VA system for care, this additional money will be increased access to 
service and improve quality of care.
  Unfortunately, this will not be true for all veterans. Despite this 
increase, veterans in the northeast and in my State of New Jersey will 
not see one extra dime for veterans' medical care. To provide our 
Veterans Integrated Service Network 3 with the same amount of funding 
as fiscal year 1999, Congress would have to provide a $2.4 billion 
amount above and beyond the President's request. However, our increase 
is an important improvement and reflects the amount set forth in this 
year's budget resolution.
  I suspect we may see some finger-pointing and hear blame today from 
all sides. But the bottom line is that this Congress, in a bipartisan 
way, provided the extra money, real dollars, $1.7 billion, that did not 
come from surplus or assumed revenues. And for this reason alone, I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Second, this bill contains important funding for essential housing 
for the elderly and individuals with disabilities of all ages. As a 
result of my amendment and others which were offered during the 
subcommittee consideration of the bill, H.R. 2684 includes an 
additional $10 million each for two important programs. Next year we 
will provide $660 million for Section 202 housing for the elderly and 
$194 million for Section 811 housing for individuals with disabilities.
  Finally, this bill continues a set-aside program that this committee 
started 3 years ago to meet the housing needs for people with 
disabilities. Our committee included $25 million for tenant-based 
rental assistance to ensure decent, safe, and affordable housing in 
communities with low-income individuals with disabilities. Further, it 
includes language directing the Secretary of HUD to use his waiver 
authority to allow nonprofit organizations to apply directly for these 
funds instead of going through public housing authorities.
  It is my belief that that change will provide better access for 
housing for more individuals with disabilities. HUD has largely been 
deficient in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities seeking 
affordable housing but was very quick to take credit for all these 
funds last year even though the administration's budget request did not 
request one dime for the program.
  I am pleased that Congress took the lead again to provide the funding 
and it should receive the credit, as well. Again, I commend the 
chairman and the ranking member for their work and support of this bill 
and appropriation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is an absolutely wonderful bill unless my 
colleagues think that the Congress ought to spend our time responding 
to the legitimate needs of the American people. If they do, then it 
turns out to be a bit of a turkey.
  I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee for that fact. He is 
a good man, and he is doing the best that he can under a ridiculous 
budget situation. But let me tell my colleagues what is wrong with this 
bill and why I intend to vote against it.
  First of all, the bill is $2 billion below the request and $1 billion 
below last year for housing. It is $1 billion below last year for 
science at NASA. It is $275 million below the request of the National 
Science Foundation.
  The administration's budget for veterans was totally inadequate. 
Everybody knows that. I do not know of any Member of the Congress who 
supports it. This bill itself is $1.3 billion below what the veterans 
groups regard as necessary to fund veterans' health care. The rule 
under which this bill is

[[Page H7901]]

being considered denied us the opportunity to add $750 million to take 
care of at least half of that shortfall by delaying for 1 year the 
capital gains give-away that was in the recent tax bill that just 
passed. That alone is reason enough to vote against this bill.
  The bill also zeros out funds for Americorps, which is a high 
Presidential priority. As I indicated when I made my point of order, in 
spite of all of that, this bill is $3 billion out of whack in its 
accounting because it has a ``let's pretend'' cut in TVA that does not 
save a dime. It then uses that ``let's pretend'' cut to fund $3 billion 
worth of money for other programs. But in fact, since neither the 
Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Management and Budget 
recognizes it as a real cut, this bill will trigger a sequestration and 
an across-the-board cut of all domestic programs of $1.5 billion; and 
we will trigger a defense cut of about $1.5 billion, as well.
  On the issue of housing, I would simply like to make this 
observation. This bill accelerates the already rapid separation of this 
country into two separate societies. A report issued this past weekend 
by the Center for Budget Priorities indicated that the lower two-fifths 
of this country in terms of income are actually losing economic ground, 
while the top one-fifth are enjoying unprecedented prosperity.
  Overall, the personal incomes of Americans have increased by about 20 
percent over the past 22 years. But that increase has been distributed 
in a very even manner. Incomes at the top have doubled, while incomes 
for the 50 million households at the bottom have fallen.
  This is taking place at the same time that housing costs have been 
rising and the number of rental units that were affordable to low-
income families has been shrinking at a dramatic pace.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that the 
number of rental units available to very low-income families dropped by 
$900,000 just between 1993 and 1995, and the number of very low-income 
families who must spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent 
has jumped from 3.2 million in 1978 to over 5 million people today.
  In other words, low-wage families are getting squeezed twice. First 
because their wages are not keeping pace, and secondly because housing 
costs are chewing up more and more of their meager paychecks. And 
neither party, in my view, is doing enough to deal with that problem. 
This bill makes the situation markedly worse. It cuts about $1 billion 
below last year's level from federal housing programs at about $2 
billion below the request at a time when construction and 
rehabilitation costs are rising much faster than other costs in the 
economy.
  Anybody who believes that this continued bifurcation of America can 
produce the kind of stable and peaceful and productive society that we 
all profess to want is simply not seeing things clearly.
  I would also point out that Business Week carried a very interesting 
article which states in part: ``We have demonstrated that scientific 
research has created the New Economy, but now we are concerned that we 
are being trampled on as a reward for creating the economy that made 
the surplus possible.''
  Those were the words of a scientist in describing the need to 
continue to invest in science programs that have been at the root of 
our ability to continue to expand this economy. Politicians brag a lot 
about what we have done to keep the economy going, but mostly what 
keeps the economy going is the right investment decisions both by the 
private sector and by the Government. And we are falling far short in 
meeting those obligations in science.
  Allan Bromley, former science advisor to President Bush, says, 
``Congress has lost sight of the critical role science plays in 
expanding the economy.'' I would very much agree with that.
  So I would simply say there are a lot of good reasons to vote against 
this bill. We ought to be able to do better by veterans. We ought to be 
able to do better by housing. We ought to be able to do better by the 
basic science budget. And until they do, this Member is going to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, could you tell us how much time we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to just respond to a 
couple of points that have been made.
  There is no question that we are below last year's funding level in 
this bill, and that is in keeping with the budget agreement. But let me 
just say a couple of things. If we take out of the HUD budget the $4 
billion budget gimmick that the President used, and by ``gimmick'' I 
mean it was a $4 billion appropriation in the HUD budget and the 
President specifically said in his request that this money not be spent 
until the year 2001. That money is not available in this budget year 
that we are discussing here today. If you take that budget gimmick of 
$4 billion and throw it away, we are billions above the President's 
request for housing.
  Number two, on VA medical, as I said, this is the largest increase 
ever in VA medical. We have letters from the veterans service 
organizations supporting our level of funding. And at the same time, 
this really underlines the dismal, dismal request that the President 
made and the lack of understanding for veterans' health needs in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time. I rise in full support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, who has done, I think, an 
outstanding job in working with the chairman.
  I also want to extend a salute to the senior member of the staff, 
Frank Cushing, and all the staff who have contributed to bringing this 
bill about. Without their long hours, dedication and hard work, none of 
this would have been possible.
  This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of 
diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. 
It is not an easy task to bring this wide range of interest together 
into a single bill. However, the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have forged 
a relationship which I think makes this all possible.
  H.R. 2684 is a good bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it a fair 
bill? Absolutely, yes.
  I would echo the words of my chairman that we are still early in the 
legislative process for dealing with this legislation. There will be 
plenty of opportunities for Members to offer their suggestions and 
amendments before the President finally puts his signature on it. I 
would implore my colleagues not to let perfection be the enemy of good.
  The FY 2000 VA-HUD bill is a bill produced under very difficult 
circumstances. Those have been outlined. And it is within the budget 
caps. It responsibly provides the full $1.7 billion increase, the 
amount called for in the budget resolution for veterans' medical health 
care, and fully funds Section 8 housing.
  It also provides $325 million above, that is above, the President's 
request for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.

                              {time}  1330

  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should be saluted for 
crafting this piece of legislation under very difficult circumstances, 
and I know he has worked in good faith with the ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), to forge this bill that 
the House now has before it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a fair bill and there will be time to 
strengthen it and further it as the process moves along.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, like so many who have risen before me, I understand 
that

[[Page H7902]]

the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the committee are constrained by the 
dollars which have been allocated to their subcommittee for 
expenditure.
  Having said that, that was the initial error. This bill ought not to 
be supported, because it is in the context, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, of being constrained by what the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and others have said is the 1997 
Act. Yes, we voted on that act; but the fact is when we voted on that 
act we thought last year and this year would be in deficit. We thought 
we would not have balanced the budget by this time, consistent with OMB 
and CBO hypothesis at that time.
  The context is different, and we ought not to do what we are doing, 
in my particular case, to NASA, basic science research.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2684. Over the past 7 years, NASA 
has restructured, reduced personnel without layoffs and reduced its 
costs over those 7 years by $35 billion. This is not an agency that did 
not give at the office and at home. I know the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) knows that.
  I am extraordinarily concerned. The agency has kept America at the 
forefront of science research. This bill severely cuts NASA by a 
billion dollars and undermines our role, in my opinion, as the world 
leader in science and technology.
  In fact, according to administrator Dan Golden, two centers, if this 
budget were carried into place and followed, would have to be closed. 
The reduction of the research program will eliminate an estimated 600 
grants to universities, NASA centers, and other agencies in every 
State, not just mine.
  Bill Brody, the President of Johns Hopkins University, wrote to me 
expressing his concern about the NASA cuts. In his letter he states 
that 75 percent of Hopkins' applied physics laboratory space department 
is funded through sources cut by this bill, basic, top flight, world-
class research.
  I know the chairman does not want to cut that, but his bill does 
that.
  Brody estimates that within the next year, Hopkins' ability to 
maintain core engineering capabilities will be crippled for years to 
come, and the bill threatens the loss of ongoing research and analysis.
  According to the National Business Coalition for Federal Research, 
who also contacted me, and I quote, ``Republican cuts to scientific 
research under this bill are a recipe for failure.''
  I agree. NASA funding made tracking the 1997 El Nino weather pattern 
easier and possible because of the satellite that followed its movement 
across the Pacific ocean. Clearly, our Nation's quality of life 
benefits from NASA's commitment to earth science research.
  In my district, space science research programs are carried out by 
Goddard. Because my time is short, I will not be able to fully explain 
the consequences to Goddard, but let me say that this bill funds 
certain science and says to NASA Goddard, information can be collected 
through the Earth observation system but it then cuts the funding for 
the dissemination of that information on the Internet and throughout 
the country so that universities and scientific organizations can 
utilize the information we are collecting. That makes no sense.
  I would say to my colleagues, we ought to reject this bill. We ought 
to send it back to committee, not because the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) or the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have 
done anything wrong, but the constraints and the parameters that they 
were given were inappropriate, wrong, constrained, I would say, and add 
that as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did, by a $792 billion 
tax cut proposal. If we have $792 billion, surely we have the money, 
surely we have the money, to fund, as my friend from New Jersey says, 
veterans adequately and surely basic science adequately.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the committee, as well as 
the chairman of the subcommittee, for deleting the $24.5 million for 
the selective service system. That was a good move. To me it was a 
heroic step in the direction of more liberty for the individual.
  There is no place in a free society to have a program of conscription 
and drafting of young people to fight unconstitutional wars. It saves 
$24 million, and I urge my colleagues not to support the funding for 
the selective service.
  Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out 
against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely 
unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it 
is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective 
service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for 
this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose 
putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. A month 
has passed since it has been delivered to the floor with some last-
minute emergency modifications to fund various popular programs, but as 
time passes, all the defects and shortcomings of the bill, in spite of 
the efforts of the subcommittee to try to rationalize its actions, 
serious problems are very apparent in this bill.
  I would just point out the serious shortfall in terms of funding for 
housing, based on obviously cooked numbers apparently from the 
committees and from the Committee on the Budget, and arguable numbers 
from the administration, some of which I agree and disagree with within 
this bill. There is $945M nearly 1 billion dollars less than in 1999 
for housing. It is like the House is participating in a continued sham 
in terms of the Budget Act. The fact of the matter is that the public 
is rejecting the policy path that has been laid out by the Congress but 
the majority insists on getting up and passing bills that seriously 
underfund programs and seriously underfund housing.
  This is almost a billion dollars less than what was actually funded 
last year based on trying to use standardized numbers, several billion 
dollars less than the administration has requested. I would say looking 
at what the need is that the serious problems of the past have now 
turned into a crisis with regards to housing. We cannot continue to use 
housing as the honey pot to take money out and spread it around to 
programs that have more popular support.
  In my community, in Minnesota, we have about a 1 percent vacancy 
rate. In fact, vouchers that are often provided as an answer very often 
do not work and will not work. So even though all the facts change, all 
the circumstances change, the Congress acts as if in 1999, is still on 
a 1997 budget rationale. Funds are being split off for various purposes 
here, for an $800B in tax breaks for Pentagon spending, for other 
matters, and yet we do not respond to the various and the deep needs of 
the low income people in our communities and their housing crisis. The 
homeless funds are cut, lead paint abatement funding cut, community 
development, housing funds, those of the least powerful in our society 
are shortchanged. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. I hope we 
could get to work and be in reality rather than remain in a state of 
denial. Regard the needs of people for shelter in safe sanitary 
housing.
  Once again, the GOP leadership is relying upon gimmicks to hide their 
fiscal year 2000 appropriations process train wreck. By turning their 
backs on funding needs for important people programs and failing to 
invest in important social, housing, and community development 
programs, the Republicans have all but ensured a major confrontation 
this fall with congressional Democrats and the administration. The rush 
to provide tax cuts for special interests and the wealthy have clouded 
the need to address social program funding realities.

[[Page H7903]]

  Unfortunately, the VA-HUD appropriation bill started out on a sour 
note with the Republican budget blueprint earlier this year. Adding 
salt to the wounds, the GOP majority appropriators chose to lay out 
unrealistic Labor-HHS-Education 302(b) allocations in order to spare 
from reductions popular defense spending, military pork projects, and 
NASA programs. All of these increases are provided at the extreme cost 
of housing and development programs and environmental protection. Such 
irresponsible GOP policies will put in place a convoluted process of 
shifting money into popular programs to attract votes and comply with 
the spending caps at the expense of the powerless in our society.
  Sadly, this VA-HUD bill continues to force HUD to draw the short 
straw for housing and community development programs and that will 
impact real people through the loss of jobs and affordable housing. 
There are few improvements to mention, though I am pleased that there 
is finally some commitment to restore $10 million in funding to the 
FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program, a program that I have worked 
with Chairman Walsh in the past to increase funding.
  However, the bill we will vote upon this week continues the theme of 
the past few years: making housing a principal wellspring for spending 
increases elsewhere and tax cuts for special interests and the wealthy. 
HUD estimates that in Minnesota we will lose over $23 million, 
jeopardizing 1,600 jobs and almost 2,400 units of housing for low-
income families if this bill were enacted. The cuts in HOPWA, Housing 
for Persons with AIDS, and McKinney Homeless Assistance funds would 
result in 138 homeless and persons with AIDS not being served.

  The St. Paul Public Housing Authority, one of the Nation's best, 
accurately explains the consequence: further cuts in public housing 
funds will jeopardize our safe, affordable, and quality public housing 
because cuts in operating subsidies will slow responses to repairs, cut 
key staff who screen applicants, and generally impair their ability to 
apply for and comply with Federal programs. The lack of commitment and 
cuts that this VA-HUD bill would deliver will result in fewer resident 
services and will mean less ability to deter criminal activity and 
other community concerns.
  Unfortunately, the VA-HUD appropriations bill cuts close to a billion 
dollars in funds from HUD's budget last year and is some $3 billion 
below the administration's request. Despite trying to hide the cuts by 
spreading the pain around, it is clear that housing and community 
development will suffer under this bill--an atrophy by design. This 
atrophy has also hit successful programs like the Neighborhood 
Reinvestment Corporation which faces a $10 million cut in this bill. 
Further, while the overall VA-HUD bill has lost some of the emergency 
spending gimmicks, the GOP majority appropriators have chosen instead 
to gouge ever deeper in the Labor-HHS-Education funds in order to spare 
the popular Veterans and NASA programs.
  Predictably, housing and community programs have been left with cuts 
to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and even the McKinney 
Homeless Assistance programs, housing for persons with AIDS, public 
housing, and the list goes on. No new housing assistance despite the 
commitments to authorize 100,000 new vouchers made in the 1999 budget 
authorization. This is a warped policy especially at a time when 
millions of people are on waiting lists for housing are on the streets, 
and according to a Department of Housing study deems 5.3 million 
families have worst case housing needs. This situation is frankly dire. 
The circumstances and facts change. The Federal budget is in better 
shape, but low-income housing needs have exploded. Yet the funding 
response ignores the facts.

  The real need of our communities which should be addressed by this 
bill is in preserving our federally assisted housing from the ``opt-
out'' or prepayment phenomenon by matching State programs to keep 
buildings affordable, or marking up market rents so landlords stay with 
our successful programs. But how will we be able to move forward for 
the future with preservation efforts when this bill does not squarely 
address the real housing needs of this country with what we have now? 
We are already sliding backward and the passage of the VA-HUD bill this 
week is like throwing a drowning person an anvil. This is not 
acceptable policy for housing our people or creating the economic 
opportunities that will help them move forward in tandem with their 
communities and neighborhoods. This appropriation process and budget 
blueprint is wholly inadequate. If we are going to cut spending it must 
be based on equal sharing of the burden, not loading all the cuts on 
the backs of low-income Americans and the programs which serve them. 
Certainly this policy path and bill should be rejected.
  To add insult to injury, this spending measure makes no effort to 
reconcile the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of rescinded 
section 8 moneys that have been usurped for emergency spending this 
year and the last. This year, for example, we lost $350 million in 
section 8 that is made up, if at all, on the backs of other critical 
housing programs like the CDBG block grant which serves low- and 
moderate-income folks in cities across the country.
  While the committee may claim inadequate appropriation authority 
under the budget, the fact is that there are 215 earmarks spending 
money on special interest projects. The conclusion of this bill is to 
deny funding for housing and other needs but to buy off votes to pass 
it with projects and earmarked funds.
  I am concerned regarding the cut in funding for the Community 
Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund. As the sponsor of the 
bill to maintain and improve the CDFI Fund which has been reported by 
the Banking Committee, I think it would be more appropriate to keep the 
funding for the program at $95 million, instead of what the committee 
provided through this bill, a reduction of $25 million. This 
underfunding is even more serious if we are to be able to have the 
running room to adequately fund the PRIME program that the Banking 
Committee has also reported out.

  The PRIME Act, which stands for the Program for Investment in 
Microentrepreneurs, is a modest, but important piece of legislation 
that will provide training and technical assistance to help low-income 
entrepreneurs around the country to gain access to the knowledge and 
implementation strategies that will ensure the success of their own 
business ideas. We have had two successful hearings on this legislation 
and have moved it out of the committee. Both PRIME and CDFI leverage 
resources and talent in local communities and as such, Congress should 
be supporting them to the highest extent possible.
  While this measure increases important veterans health care by a 
modest $1.5 billion more than last year, the GOP adopted a flawed rule 
before the recess that will prevent Democrats from offering amendments 
to further increase veterans health care. However, this bill still 
falls short to the desperately needed funding levels. After years of 
inadequate funding levels for the VA, we must work to push for full 
funding for our VA hospitals and nurses who are overworked and 
underpaid. This so-called increase in veterans health care would be 
offset from other existing VA programs; major VA construction would be 
cut by 76 percent. By simply shifting and shuffling existing priorities 
to meet other needs does not constitute an increase. Moreover, in a 
desperate plea to win votes, the GOP leadership has laced this bill 
with hundreds of pork-barrel projects for a range of activities 
requested by individual lawmakers. Such policy is clearly a rancid 
effort in order to win passage of a highly flawed bill.
  Year after year, the Republicans have unsuccessfully attacked the 
President's Americorps program. Predictably, this legislation 
completely eliminates the Americorps program. Currently, over 20,000 
Americorps members serve full or part time. In exchange for service, 
members receive education awards. The Americorps program allows and 
encourages people to strengthen our communities by providing needed 
human resources to schools, churches, community groups, and nonprofit 
organizations, while at the same time investing in their own education; 
both aspects are extremely important in ensuring a positive future for 
our nation. Despite the fact that the President adamantly supports this 
program and in fact has called upon Congress to allow even more of our 
young people to participate in Americorps this year, the Republican 
leadership has once again insisted on senseless, cyclical cuts to this 
beneficial program.

  I am also disturbed by the lack of initiative taken by the majority 
to support several key programs administered by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and critical to the health of the people and 
their land in this legislation. Today, global warming is becoming an 
ever increasing and prevalent threat. I don't think I need to point any 
further than outside the doors of the Capitol where this summer we are 
experiencing an unseasonably hot, humid, rain free, and pollution rich 
summer that forced many children to stay inside due to upper 
respiratory problems. Despite the faint glimmer of the sun through a 
gray haze on our doorstep, some Members continue to fight against the 
implementation of initiatives designed to curb global warming. why? 
Because these initiatives are a thinly veiled guise being instituted by 
the EPA in an attempt to secretly implement the Kyoto Protocol. Air 
quality programs are not the only programs seriously underfunded in 
this legislation. Research programs, both in-house and grant based, are 
flat lined from last years appropriation, thus stifling important 
research and possible technological breakthroughs, and leaving many 
worthy research projects in the dark. Superfund, a program designed to 
fix this Nation's most environmentally polluted and disastrous areas, 
has been reduced $50 million. Despite these egregious examples of the 
misappropriation of

[[Page H7904]]

Federal dollars to the EPA, the solution is simple--eliminate over 100 
of the special interest projects that cost this legislation $352 
million and apply that money to programs that benefit all of America.
  Overall, this bill is a failure. While the House has now passed the 
trillion dollar tax cut for those who are well off, this GOP measure 
will siphon off much needed funds from important housing programs for 
the less fortunate; shifts around dollars from VA construction projects 
to fund critical health care needs, thus creating an illusionary 
increase; boost NASA spending at the expense of our environment; kills 
the Americorps programs; and is washed down with hundreds of pet 
projects. The unavoidable conclusion is that this measure is bad 
policy.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
has had a difficult job operating under a balanced budget just like 
every other chairman. It is difficult to gauge where one is going to 
reduce spending for veterans or space programs, science programs and 
others, and I understand that; but I think it is even more difficult, 
if we do nothing, for our children and our grandchildren.
  Day after day, people on both sides of the aisle will stand up and 
say, well, I supported the balanced budget, but yet many of those same 
people will stand here in the well and say in every one of the 13 
appropriations bills, they want more spending, want more spending, want 
more spending, which will drive us to the 40 years of irresponsible 
spending when the Democrats controlled this House. We do not want to 
return to that.
  I would love to increase more spending on veterans. They have been 
denied health care, and they have been promised that for years. We 
cannot do that under a balanced budget. And the space programs, I 
believe that our mission and our future is in space, but it is more 
important for us to maintain that balanced budget, to take a look at 
our priorities, and I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
with one exception, has done a good job at that.
  I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who spoke a 
minute ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary 
of Defense strongly support the selective service system, but it is in 
our children's best interest to support not only this bill for the 
tough decisions that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) made but 
for the future and the balanced budget and living within those 
constraints.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the previous 
speaker on the intellectual honesty of his statement when he noted that 
many who voted for the 1997 Balanced Budget Act will now be standing up 
here on both sides disclaiming any responsibility for its consequences.
  It is, in fact, inconsistent to maintain those caps but then go home 
and tell people how much you love community development, block grants 
and want to do more, and want to be for more of this or more of that.
  To some extent, what we are dealing with here is a matter of 
intellectual honesty. I believe the intellectually honest thing to do 
is to admit a mistake. I think what we have here is a little infallible 
envy.
  Virtually every Member understands in his heart of hearts or her 
heart of hearts that the 1997 Balanced Budget Act was based on 
inaccurate information. I must say I thought it was wrong at the time.
  As I get older, I learn that one of the few pleasures that improves 
with age is saying I told you so. I knew it was dumb then. Some of my 
colleagues may be later converts to it, but look at the consequences. 
As I told the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), I had a little 
sympathy for him describing this bill. As he explained it, he did a 
good job as he did, given what he was given to work with. He and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) did their best, but I 
thought of that story then of I felt sorry because I had no shoes and 
then I met a man who had no feet.
  If one feels sorry for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), wait 
until the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) comes in with his bill. 
Not only does he have no feet, they cut him off about three ribs short 
of his shoulders.
  This House is in a situation where we are providing far too little 
money for fundamental social purposes that hold this country together, 
and we are making a grave error.
  Alan Greenspan in April said he regretted the fact that the 
international free trade consensus that used to exist in America has 
fallen apart, and he said I understand some people are getting hurt. We 
should not, he said, allow our inability to help these people to drive 
us away from support for internationalism, but it is not an inability.
  It is not an inability that this bill shows. It is an unwillingness. 
This very rich country does not have to cut community development block 
grants and cut housing and put more of a burden on people. We are 
making a terribly grave social error. As capitalism flourishes and the 
rich get richer and the stock market approaches levels that make Mr. 
Greenspan nervous, we come in with a bill that takes away from the 
poorest of the poor, the neediest and the working poor.
  Let us send this bill back and do the job right.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's words be taken 
down and engraved upon the door, because they are absolutely correct.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman certainly has the right to say I told you 
so, but that does not mean that he is right. This agreement caused us 
to make difficult choices, and we are trying to do that today.
  But I would remind the committee and the Members that if they take 
the President's budget gimmick of $4.2 billion out of his request, this 
bill allocates $2 billion more than the President actually allowed or 
requested be spent on the housing programs for those exact same poor 
that the gentleman just mentioned.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman).
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
precious 1 minute. I use that minute to make the point that this bill 
by its reduction and acceptance of reductions from the administration 
for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is doing a great 
disservice to this Nation. NASA is an agency and an institution within 
the United States which has made immeasurable contributions to the 
betterment of our society. We have gone forward with a space program 
which I applaud; but in the process, the administration, year after 
year, has submitted budgets proposed for NASA which are pitifully 
inadequate and have starved all the other programs and agencies within 
NASA to an extent that it is shameful.
  In aviation alone $400 million has been deducted or reduced from the 
appropriations for that phase of NASA science and activities. No 
airplane in the world flies today without the benefit of the research 
done by NASA on aeronautics. It is virtually a crime. And we must fix 
it to see that these programs are restored; and we ought to do it at 
the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from West 
Virginia for the time.
  I just want to encourage my 2 colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) who is a strong supporter of the AmeriCorps program, and I 
know the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is a strong 
supporter, to make sure that while this program is completely 
eliminated, not a penny for AmeriCorps in this bill on the House floor, 
that we restore this money in conference with the Senate.
  We have a crisis in our schools with teacher shortages and with 
school safety. The AmeriCorps program currently

[[Page H7905]]

mentors and tutors 2.6 million schoolchildren, and they help 564,000 
at-risk children in after-school programs.
  Now we can either approach this by appropriating more money in 
education bills that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) does not 
have for these problems or we can continue a program that is working 
with these AmeriCorps volunteers at places like the University of Notre 
Dame and help our schools do a better job and help our neighborhood 
schools with at-risk after-school programs.
  So I would like to encourage the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
who has been a very strong supporter of this program to continue to 
work with us in conference.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote against this bill because it 
seriously underfunds our commitment to our veterans.
  The gentleman from my hometown of San Diego, California (Mr. 
Cunningham) said we ought to fund our Nation's veterans, but we cannot. 
We cannot because of this agreement we made a couple years ago.
  The subcommittee saw that as a problem and asked the full committee 
for an emergency designation for which it could receive an extra $3 
billion for our veterans. They were overruled. I think the chairman was 
right. It is an emergency situation to fund our veterans. We are not 
keeping our commitment that we made to them.
  This must be classified as an emergency today. Providing veterans 
health care is emergency. The VA health system is drastically 
underfunded and in danger of actual collapse. The national cemeteries 
that we should pride ourselves on are also facing disaster. We are 
releasing our veterans from the hospitals with Alzheimer's disease. We 
have serious illnesses that were contracted either in Vietnam or the 
Persian Gulf that are not getting adequate treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an emergency.
  Now when we say we ought to put more money in the budget, my friends 
on the majority side say well the President underfunded the veterans in 
his proposal. Yes, he did. I agree with that; underfunded by $3 
billion. But remember this is not the President's budget. This is a 
congressional budget. It is our responsibility, and we underfund 
veterans by at least a billion and a half.
  Mr. Chairman, the veterans organizations of this Nation, all of them, 
combine to come up with what they thought was a reasonable amount to 
keep our VA health system going. They said $3.2 billion additional. 
This budget underfunds that by a billion and a half. We need that 
money, and it is an emergency. Let us put more money in for our 
veterans, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on the points that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) made, and I understand his commitment is very strong to 
America's veterans, as are all Members. Just to set the record 
straight, we provided the President's request level for veterans 
cemeteries. That is a $5 million increase over the 1999 enacted level. 
So we actually did increase the budget for veterans cemeteries.
  As regards the request for emergency designation, we did do that, but 
we requested the $1.7 billion increase that was authorized by the 
committee, and that is consistent with what the veterans authorizing 
committee suggested and the budget document requested, and we were not 
given emergency designation. What we were given was an actual $1.7 
billion in real dollars to increase the veterans health care budget.
  So I think it shows a substantial commitment on the part of the 
subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations, and we will take 
on that mantle of being veterans advocates; if the Executive Branch 
will not, we will do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this bill is flawed from the sky above to 
the earth below. Here on terra firma the bill would hurt the poor, the 
elderly and the disabled by cutting their housing assistance and the 
sky above, our space program, and its innovation, its ability to create 
new jobs is being destroyed. Glenn Research Center in my district, 
which is one of the finest centers in this country, is under attack in 
this bill.
  America is in effect eating its technological seed corn by destroying 
the ability of the space program to create new jobs with cuts like 
this, and at the same time America turns its back on the poor while the 
rich are getting richer, the poor are indeed getting poorer. It is time 
to take this bill away from fat city and send it back to committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield all the remaining time to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized 
for 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell my colleagues I found 
this budget very hard to explain to people back home. While we are all 
here patting ourselves on the back for this string of unprecedented 
economic prosperity, it seems all too easy to overlook the communities 
that are not reaping the benefits. The unemployment rate in some of 
these communities is as high as 20 percent, Mr. Chairman, and more than 
5 million families in our country are only a paycheck away from losing 
their homes.
  In light of these problems that our families and our seniors are 
facing, we should use our prosperity to increase HUD's capacity to 
create jobs, to build homes; but instead we are cutting the HUD budget. 
The effects of these cuts on the lives of families and seniors and the 
homeless would be devastating. In my district alone, we would loose 
$4.5 billion; and hundreds of low-income families could be left out in 
the cold. In the city of Chicago where the Chicago housing authority is 
just beginning to turn the corner on a persistent housing crisis, we 
are going to be setting the CHA back.
  We have a responsibility here, a responsibility to expand and not to 
cut vital housing and economic development programs. We need to take 
drastic steps, not to cut, but to develop a successful and 
comprehensive affordable housing and economic development policy. This 
should be a national priority, and at a time when we have a $14 billion 
federal budget surplus; if not now, when?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, briefly in closing I would like to thank the 
distinguished Chair for conducting this portion of the general debate 
and my colleagues for, I think, a very intelligent, thoughtful debate.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, earlier today at a press 
conference Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Andrew Cuomo made 
a very forceful and important statement about this particular bill. I 
thought the Secretary's statement was a very important contribution to 
the debate, so I am including the statement issued by Secretary Cuomo 
earlier today at the press conference for the Record, and would request 
that it be placed at the end of the general debate on the bill that was 
debated today.
  The statement referred to follows:

                      Statement of Secretary Cuomo

       Good afternoon. First I would like to thank Congressman 
     Gephardt not just for his kind words of support today but for 
     the support he has shown for HUD over these many years. I 
     think the great turnout you see here today of Congress people 
     from across the country reflects that leadership--and we need 
     that leadership now.
       Congressman Gephardt, I want to thank you very much for 
     everything you have done for all of us. We heard a lot of 
     talk about the $800 billion tax cut and how it is bad 
     economic policy and it is risky and it is reckless--and I 
     think it is undeniable. It gets worse when you look at who 
     would get the tax cut and how it is fueled--obviously to the 
     richest of the rich. You make $500,000 you get a $32,000 tax 
     cut; if you make $18,000 you get $22--period. It makes the 
     $800 billion tax cut more repugnant. When you then also 
     consider the cuts to the essential programs that they would 
     do simultaneously without tax cuts, the situations become 
     unbearable

[[Page H7906]]

     and it becomes frankly, in my opinion, repugnant in its 
     clarity.
       The programs that would be cut would hurt the poor, the 
     working American families and the middle class American 
     families right across the board. HUD is just a good example 
     of it. A $1.6 billion cut which would cut virtually every 
     program in the Department from soup to nuts, virtually every 
     program--there are one or two programs that would not be cut. 
     To give you a couple of examples: at a time when this nation 
     has the highest need for affordable housing in its history, 
     5.3 million families need affordable housing; waiting lists 
     for affordable housing all across the country are years long 
     and are getting longer. Under their budget, the number of new 
     units that would be produced next year goes to zero--zero--
     highest need in history, waiting lists are getting longer 
     across the country--they would produce exactly zero units.
       Our main economic development programs, when we are trying 
     to get people from welfare to work, when we are trying to do 
     something about income inequality, when we are trying to do 
     something about urban areas that are struggling to catch up--
     they would cut the economic development program 90%. At a 
     time when the nation is trying to come together as a 
     community and President Clinton is talking about one America, 
     at a time when we are moving towards a majority minority 
     nation--they would cut the funds to fight racial 
     discrimination. They would cut the funds to combat lead paint 
     removal. Lead paint removal is removing the lead paint from 
     older homes so children don't get poisoned. They would cut 
     those funds. They would then cut the programs as the 
     Congressman mentioned that literally go to house the homeless 
     and house people with AIDS--about 16,000 fewer people would 
     receive that assistance. The cuts will be felt by every 
     city and every county across the states, not just one part 
     of the country, one area, one location: it is not just 
     urban American or suburban or rural, it is all across the 
     country, coast to coast. Places like Boston will lose $15 
     million, the city of Atlanta will lose $9.5 million, 
     Dallas $8.8 million. Every city, every country. We 
     recently did a report which we have here today called 
     ``Losing Ground'' which details the cuts Congressional 
     District by Congressional District.
       This budget will pull the rungs out of the ladder of 
     opportunity and cut the safety net. We should expect more 
     people to fall into poverty, more people to be unemployed, 
     more homeless and expect their conditions in those situations 
     to be worse. And as the Congressman pointed out, this country 
     is doing very, very well, and President Clinton is very proud 
     of the economic progress. But there is also no doubt that 
     there are many hard working American families who have not 
     yet shared in that economic progress. And what the HUD budget 
     is all about is bringing them along, bringing all Americans 
     up to share in that opportunity. Now is not the time to cut 
     the rungs on the ladder of opportunity, now is the time we 
     should be doing the exact opposite.
       I thank Congressman Gephardt once again for his leadership 
     and all the members who are here today for their stand on 
     this proposal.

  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, H.R. 2684, 
that we are considering today has many shortcomings that prevent me 
from voting for it in its present form.
  The major agency that takes the largest cuts in the bill is NASA. 
Total appropriations for FY 2000 under the bill are $1 billion, or 7% 
less than the FY 1999 level. These cuts, I believe, would jeopardize 
the future of our space research programs, including programs directed 
at solving problems here on earth, that are pushing forward the 
frontiers of knowledge about our universe.
  These cuts to NASA's budget are being made despite recent legislation 
passed by the House, which I supported, that authorized higher levels 
of spending than those being proposed by Congress.
  The VA-HUD Appropriations bill also fails to fund any incremental 
housing vouchers and would impose a 5% cut in the critical Community 
Development Block Grant program. According to HUD, the overall cuts 
would result in an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for low-income 
families, at a time when their housing needs are at all-time high. As a 
result of these cuts persons with AIDS and 16,000 homeless families 
would not receive vital housing and related services. In addition, 
97,000 jobs would not be generated in communities that need them. If 
passed by the full Congress, I believe these cuts would have a 
devastating impact on families and communities nationwide.
  In addition, the AmeriCorps program is cut $435 million from the FY 
1999 level, in effect, terminating the program.
  AmeriCorps, the domestic Peace Corps, engages more than 40,000 
Americans in intensive, results-driven service each year. AmeriCorps 
members are tackling critical problems like illiteracy, crime and 
poverty. They have taught, tutored or mentored more than 2.6 million 
children, served 564,000 at-risk youth in after-school programs, 
operated 40,500 safety patrols, rehabilitated 25,179 homes, aided more 
than 2.4 million homeless individuals, and immunized 419,000 people.
  In Connecticut, more than 1,200 residents have served their 
communities through AmeriCorps.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that AmeriCorps helps solve critical 
problems in an effective way. It creates $1.66 worth benefits for each 
$1.00 spent. And for every full-time AmeriCorps member, 12 regular and 
occasional unpaid volunteers are recruited and mobilized. AmeriCorps 
is, indeed, effectively preparing young people for the future and 
strengthening local communities.
  As a result of program cuts, however, a great number of important 
projects that foster involvement and learning in technology by children 
and adults, will go unfunded. One of these is Project FIRST (Fostering 
Instructional Reform through Service and Technology Initiatives), whose 
role it is to increase access to technology and its educational 
benefits in the nation's least-served schools. Another way AmeriCorps 
is involved with technology is through TechCorps, a national non-
profit organization that is driven and staffed primarily with 
technologically proficient volunteers. However, if funding is not 
restored, TechCorps will not receive AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers to 
bring this program to underserved, low-income communities.

  I believe these programs are important, because even though American 
technology is propelling the nation's economy to unprecedented heights, 
growing concern remains for those who are not benefitting from his 
prosperity. For those left behind by the advancing technology, the 
divide growing between the ``haves'' and ``have-nots'' is increasing at 
an alarming rate, as demonstrated by the Department of Commerce in its 
July, 1999 report, ``Falling through the Net.''
  These AmeriCorps programs bring technology to underserved populations 
and address weaknesses in our economy, such as unequal access to 
technology, teacher training, and evaluation.
  However, I do not believe AmeriCorps is essential just because it can 
help close the ``digital divide.'' It is essential because it exposes 
young people to the ideal of serving their community and their nation. 
Colin Powell has succinctly captured this idea of community service by 
stating, ``For some of our young people, preserving our democratic way 
of life means shouldering a rifle or climbing into a cockpit or 
weighting anchor and setting out to sea. for others, it means helping a 
child to read or helping that child to secure needed vaccinations or it 
means building a park or helping bring peace to a troubled neighborhood 
or helping communities recover from natural disasters or reclaiming the 
environment.''
  Harris Wofford, former United States Senator and now head of the 
Corporation for National Service, echoes Powell's thoughts, ``Our 
country needs more . . . patriotism. AmeriCorps encourages and inspires 
this patriotism on the home front.''
  Finally, a quote by Vaclav Havel, I believe, explains the need to 
have an AmeriCorps, ``This dormant good will in people needs to be 
stirred. People need to hear that it makes sense to behave decently or 
to help others, to place common interest above their own, to respect 
the elementary rules of human coexistence. Good will longs to be 
recognized and cultivated.''
  This, I believe, is the essential value of national service, and by 
extension, of AmeriCorps. Serving is as important and rewarding as 
being served.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the cuts in this bill would move America in 
the wrong direction. Despite unprecedented economic prosperity, there 
are significant unmet needs in our nation's communities and in our 
science and research programs. We should not cut programs that meet 
vital housing, economic development, and research needs. I will 
strongly oppose this bill because it fails to meet our responsibilities 
to war veterans, to provide relief and recovery after natural 
disasters, to provide service to the community, to protect the 
environment, to help to meet housing needs, and to undertake essential 
research that will greatly the American public.
  We can do better, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to 
HR 2684, the VA/HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000, because 
of the substantial and devastating cuts that the bill makes in funding 
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. At a time when our 
nation is experiencing record budget surpluses, it is unconscionable 
that this body would cut funding that goes to some of the most neediest 
of our constituents.
  The bill before us today could likely result in 40,000 Americans, 
including many of my constituents in the Virgin Islands, being forced 
out of their current HUD funded housing and onto the street due to the 
draconian cuts in the Section 8 program.
  And as if these cuts weren't bad enough, the bill cuts the funds for 
repairing and maintaining public housing properties by a half a

[[Page H7907]]

billion dollars and underfunds operating subsidies by $400 million on 
top of the $400 million shortfall in the current fiscal year. As a 
result of these cuts, over 105,000 affordable housing units will not be 
modernized and properly maintained meaning that in districts like my 
own which are prone to natural disasters those units would be in even 
more jeopardy.
  My colleagues, while our poorest families, the elderly and the 
disabled are the ones who will be most directly harmed by the cuts in 
this bill, ultimately all of us will all be affected and will pay the 
price of increased homelessness and dilapidated buildings.
  For the Virgin Islands these cuts will be particularly hard felt 
because the local government is currently wrestling with a current 
fiscal year deficit of $100 million dollars and an accumulated deficit 
of one billion dollars. If the $250 million from the CDBG program isn't 
restored, the affect that it will have on hundreds of my constituents 
who benefit from the several worthy local programs which CDBG funds 
would be tragic.
  I ask you, my friends in the majority: is it right that you would 
propose to spend almost all of the $800 billion non-Social Security 
surpluses on a politically motivated tax bill while at the same time 
refusing to fund the President's request for 100,000 incremental 
Section 8 vouchers when a record number of Americans face a lack of 
affordable housing?
  I urge my colleagues to join the Association of Local Housing Finance 
Agencies, the National Community Development Association, the National 
Rural Housing Coalition, the National Association of Counties, the 
National Association of Housing Partnerships, the National League of 
Cities and the US Conference of Mayors in opposing this VA/HUD 
Appropriations bill because of what it will mean to the neediest among 
us.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, it is our duty to fulfill our promises to 
our nation's veterans, the men and women who have put themselves in 
harm's way in service to their country. It is our duty to care for our 
veterans, and if we pass this legislation, we will fail miserably.
  We are faced today with a bill that fails to deliver to our veterans 
the funding they so desperately need. If we pass this bill, we will 
only be perpetuating the failure of the President's severely lacking 
budget. Even though this bill would provide $1.7 billion more than the 
President's request, it is still not nearly enough. Two wrongs do not 
make a right, and if we pass this legislation our veterans will be 
wronged yet again, by Congress as well as the Administration.
  The Republican leadership would have you believe that the Independent 
Budget submitted by the veterans themselves is bloated and overstates 
the funding needs for veterans programs. I reject this assertion 
completely and am horrified that the Republicans are alleging double-
counting and padding of budget estimates by respected veterans' groups 
such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, 
AMVETS, and Paralyzed Veterans of America.
  As if these allegations were not enough, the Republican leadership is 
now touting this anemic bill as a cause for celebration and criticizing 
veterans for ``complaining'' when they fail to celebrate over a bill 
that is lacking over one billion in critically needed funds. The 
Republicans have resorted to these tactics against veterans who fought 
to preserve the prosperity of this country--the prosperity in which 
veterans will not share if this bill is passed. These accusations are a 
slap in the face to our veterans and add insult to injury.
  As a strong supporter of our nation's veterans, I am forced today to 
vote against this bill due to its severe lack of funding for veterans' 
programs. Veterans groups agree that this bill falls short by at least 
$1.1 billion. In light of projected budget surpluses and an 
irresponsible trillion dollar tax cut, it is especially disappointing 
to see the men and women who have served this country overlooked by 
those who would rather squander the surplus recklessly than use it to 
secure the future of critical programs such as veterans benefits and 
Social Security and reduction of our growing national debt.
  Our veterans are aging, and their medical needs are growing as a 
result. This bill, however, does not address those needs. The number of 
VA medical facilities has decreased almost 35% in the last ten years, 
but this bill fails to address the growing demand for VA services as a 
result of the increasing number of veterans over the age of 65. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, 36% of all veterans 
are over the age of 65, and that number is expected to increase 
exponentially over the next eight years. An aging veterans population 
will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. 
At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary 
facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs.
  Faced with this reality, I am unable to vote for a bill that will 
short-change veterans by over a billion dollars while Republicans 
insist on robbing Social Security and sacrificing veterans' healthcare, 
in favor of squandering the surplus on fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a travesty. The 
funding to provide services for our Veterans and to assist with housing 
for low-income families is wholely inadequate. At this time, I wish to 
address another area where this bill is unacceptable, the lack of 
funding for the Corporation for National Service (CNS) and its newest 
program, AmeriCorps.
  All funding for the CNS was eliminated in Committee to shift money to 
other appropriations bills and to support a tax bill the American 
people know is a scam.
  The CNS administers an impressive list of programs that provide 
assistance to people throughout the nation. From elementary school kids 
and seniors who are paired together through the Foster Grandparents 
program, to college and high school students involved in Learn and 
Serve America gaining college credit and benefiting from dedicated 
tutors, America is better off for the work Americans are doing through 
CNS programs.
  AmeriCorps members are providing an invaluable service to communities 
around the country. In my district AmeriCorps members have worked with 
the Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers and Sisters, and the Food Bank of 
Monterey. Currently they are serving at the Santa Cruz Community Credit 
Union and the Foundation of California State University, Monterey Bay.
  In Santa Cruz, 24 men and women served as AmeriCorps members with the 
Homeless Garden Project. Not only did participants gain agricultural 
skills and farming experience, they worked with six Santa Cruz school 
gardens and mentored at-risk youth through involvement in garden 
activities.
  AmeriCorps volunteers have been integral to the recovery from the 
many natural disasters faced by Americans in the past few years. 
AmeriCorps participants spend countless hours assisting FEMA and the 
American Red Cross with disaster relief. Participants have helped 
emergency efforts such as the Northwest Flood in January of 1997, 
California Floods of 1998, Southern California Fires of 1996, and the 
list goes on. AmeriCorps has been responsible for the sheltering of 
families, working at mobile food units, watching for floods, conducting 
traffic, and numerous other vitally important task for victims of 
natural disasters.
  As expressed at the President's Summit on America's Future in 
Philadelphia, we need to encourage all Americans to volunteer. Each 
AmeriCorps member leverages approximately twelve to fourteen new 
volunteers. When you have a program where Americans are volunteering to 
assist others in need, it would be fostered and encouraged.
  AmeriCorps members are making a difference in our communities and 
their presence will be sorely missed if this funding is cut. I 
encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill and insist on restoring 
funding for AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National Service.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2684. 
While I support an increase in funding for our country's veterans, I 
feel that this bill unfairly cuts programs that affect low-income 
individuals. It slashes the total budget by $1.6 billion for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development through cuts in nearly 
every program. At a time of historic prosperity and economic success, I 
think this is a serious mistake.
  One of the major cuts is out of the Community Development Block Grant 
(CDBG). This wonderful program provides funding for every community in 
the country. Community Action Agencies depend on this funding as the 
backbone of programs for the poor in urban, suburban and rural 
communities. This money simply passes through HUD to states, counties 
and cities to use on community priorities. In Montgomery County, Ohio, 
CDBG provides an invaluable resource in addressing community needs, 
such as affordable housing and economic development. The U.S. 
Conference of Mayors has stated that CDBG funds benefit almost every 
single household at or below 80% of the national median income level. 
Millions of low- and middle-income Americans would be hurt by this cut.
  This bill would also reduce funding for affordable housing. Secretary 
Cuomo's remarkable effort to create a ``continuum of care'' would be 
savaged by this bill. If we do not provide money for Section 8 
vouchers, public housing, and Housing for Persons With AIDS, and even 
cut money for Habitat for Humanity, we handcuff ourselves into simply 
focusing on emergencies. We have too many people who are homeless 
already. Without these programs funded at adequate levels, we will 
become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
  I am thankful for all of the work that HUD does. Secretary Cuomo is 
to be commended for his efforts to eradicate poverty and expand the 
American dream of homeownership to all Americans, not just the wealthy. 
I was just

[[Page H7908]]

with Mrs. Tipper Gore and the Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority in 
announcing an $18.3 million HOPE VI grant for a troubled community in 
my district.
  This is exactly what we should be doing during this time of 
unprecedented economic growth. We would be shortsighted indeed to 
neglect those who most need our assistance. This bill would cost my 
district almost $2 million and the State of Ohio over $73 million.
  In addition to slashing the HUD budget and thereby adversely 
affecting the poor, it completely defunds AmeriCorps. The thousands of 
volunteers in the AmeriCorps program are one of the best tools we have 
in fighting against poverty and assisting community-based organizations 
all around this country. The University of Dayton's SWEAT program and 
the Congressional Hunger Center's Beyond Food programs are terrific 
examples of AmeriCorps successes. Their members serve those in need day 
in and day out. I have had the opportunity to meet and serve with some 
of these wonderful servants who will undoubtedly become the future 
leaders that this country so desperately needs. We cannot cut funding 
for AmeriCorps and not hurt our communities.
  I therefore oppose this bill and ask my colleagues to restore full 
funding fur HUD and AmeriCorps.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to applaud the VA-HUD 
Appropriations Committee in its efforts to provide proper funding 
levels for our nation's Veterans.
  H.R. 2684, the VA-HUD--Independent Agencies Appropriation for Fiscal 
Year 2000, places the concerns of veterans at the front of the line. 
The promises our country has made to those who put themselves in harm's 
way for our nation are promises that must be kept. This legislation 
takes a good step forward in fulfilling those promises. This bill 
provides a total of $44.1 billion for VA programs and benefits, an 
increase of $1.5 billion over last year's bill.
  The monies secured in this legislation will go to programs that are 
becoming increasingly essential to our aging veterans. Our World War II 
and Korean War era veterans are more reliant than ever on the medical 
services provided for by the VA for service connected disabilities. 
This legislation appropriates a total of $19 billion for medical care 
and treatment, an increase of $1.7 billion in funds with an additional 
$608 million to be collected from the Medical Care Collections Fund, 
totaling $19.6 billion. The funding increased in this legislation is a 
sign of this Congress' commitment to keep its word.
  Mr. Chairman, while we must honor our promises to veterans, we must 
also keep those promises we have made to all Americans. This 
legislation may keep its word to veterans but it breaks it promise to 
many more Americans: education, science, housing and environmental 
protection programs are being stripped of the funds necessary to assure 
domestic security.
  This legislation fails to meet the request for housing programs by 
$982 million and severely limits the ability of HUD to provide 
assistance to homeless families. This legislation reduces Community 
Development Block Grants by 6% and cuts ``Brownfields'' clean up by 
20%. These are programs that are necessary for the health and welfare 
of our communities. This bill also eliminates Americorps, reduces 
funding for the National Science Foundation and cuts the NASA funding 
level by 7%.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am encouraged by the renewed commitment this 
bill makes to our nation's former servicemen and women, I cannot vote 
for a bill which breaks our commitment to so many others.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2684.
  Last February I hosted a town meeting in Kerrville, Texas, to discuss 
the President's VA budget and the future of the Kerrville VA Medical 
Center. Over 1,400 veterans attended and voiced their concerns about 
the President's proposed budget cuts that would reduce services at the 
Kerrville VA.
  At that time, the President had submitted a proposed VA budget that 
was woefully inadequate. It was an insult to those that have served our 
nation.
  But thanks to the leadership of the Appropriations Committee members 
and the millions of veterans around the country, this bill contains the 
largest veterans' medical care increase ever.
  In the face of a seriously under-funded Administration budget for 
veterans' health care, this bill sends a clear message: Veterans will 
continue to receive the high quality, accessible health care they were 
promised.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget keeps the promises that we made to our 
veterans.
  I urge passage of H.R. 2684.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill for a number of 
reasons, but primarily because it breaks our promise of health care to 
our nation's veterans.
  Many of us have worked hard to make improved funding for health care 
for veterans a hallmark of this Congress. I want to think the Members 
of both sides of the aisle for their efforts in this regard. We began 
this budget process with a funding proposal from the Administration 
that was inadequate. I believe the Administration's willingness to 
reconsider their initial proposal and add a billion dollars was 
responsible for leveraging the significant additional funds for 
veterans' health care this Congress is now discussing. I commend the 
Administration, and particularly, Vice President Gore for his 
leadership in the Administration's decision to increase its request for 
veterans medical care by $1 billion for fiscal year 2000.
  That said, I am going to reject this proposal for VA-HUD 
appropriations. It goes further in meeting some of the challenges faced 
by the VA health care system, but it does not go far enough.
  Although the add-on of $700 million the Republicans are now 
supporting sounds substantial, it still fails to meet the needs we have 
heard from VA officials both on and off-the-record. Unfortunately the 
Republican majority of the Committee on Rules failed to protect under 
the rule to consider the Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment to the 
measure before us which Republicans passed on a party-line vote. The 
Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment would have more than doubled the 
additional funds the appropriators added for the veterans' health care 
system. I regret that our efforts to delay a cut in the capital gains 
tax for one year will mean that veterans may not receive the VA health 
care that they need and the level of service that they deserve.
  Many VA leaders would confess that these funds would have offered 
welcome relief to a system now overwhelmed by veterans' new and growing 
demand for health care. Additional funds would have meant VA would be 
able to expand access to veterans who have not previously been able to 
use VA because of their distance from the medical centers. It would 
have better ensured VA could eliminate serious problems with waiting 
times that confront veterans in primary care clinics (including the new 
community-based outpatient clinics), orthopedic clinics, ophthalmology 
and audiology. It would have helped veterans obtain prosthetics, 
including such necessities as wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids, 
and eyeglasses on a more timely basis. Additional funds would help Va 
face the emerging public health crisis of Hepatitis C by adding funds 
to overextended pharmaceutical budgets. It would have assisted VA in 
restoring some of the significant reductions that it has made in mental 
health services or help facilities meet the overwhelming need from 
long-term care aging WW II veterans are now facing.
  I also oppose this bill because it fails our nation's low-income 
families by reducing their access to affordable housing. The strong 
economy has boosted the cost of housing, placing this basic need 
further from the reach of struggling families and the elderly. Yet, the 
bill contains no new funding for new Section 8 housing vouchers. It 
also cuts funding for the construction and rehabilitation of public 
housing as well as cut assistance for the most needy, the homeless. 
This is unacceptable.
  In my home state of Illinois there are 67,182 project-based Section 8 
apartments of which 41,437 have expiring contracts within the next five 
years. The cuts in this bill would cost my district alone $2 Million in 
housing funds and cause 130 fewer affordable units to be built. Stable 
housing is fundamental to allowing those with low incomes to improve 
their economic well-being. I oppose this bill because it doesn't do 
enough to provide working poor families, the elderly and the homeless 
with the housing assistance they so desperately need.
  Clearly this legislation lets down our veterans and some of the most 
needy in our society. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest mistakes we can make 
during times of great prosperity is to turn our backs on those who have 
been left out of the economic mainstream. Our great country is 
experiencing an economic boom the likes of which we haven't seen in a 
generation. But it would be a grave mistake to forget that too many 
people have not been included in this financial good fortune. It is 
times like this when it becomes more important than ever to help those 
who are most in need. The legislation before us would make huge cuts to 
the Housing and Urban Development budget, which would drastically 
affect much needed housing, job creation and economic development 
programs that play a vital role serving distressed communities.
  In Colorado, passage of this bill would result in a loss of more than 
$16 million HUD dollars at a time when affordable housing is becoming 
increasingly out of reach for more and more people. In my district 
alone, approximately $5 million would be lost, depriving my 
constituents of almost 300 jobs. This loss of funds would deny hundreds 
of low-income families affordable housing, and would take away housing 
assistance for over 75 families and/or individuals who are homeless or 
have AIDS.

[[Page H7909]]

These cuts are not something that people in my district can afford, nor 
can individuals or families in cities and counties across the country. 
A booming economy and demand for homes has made the affordable housing 
market extremely tight in my district, throughout the State of Colorado 
and across the country. Even in the midst of great prosperity, worst-
case housing situations are nearing an all-time high.
  It should come as no surprise to any of us that even with today's 
economy there are pockets of deep poverty throughout this country where 
people are suffering as much as they ever have. This is not time to 
abandon them. Cutting Section 8 vouchers, funding for Community 
Development Block Grants, the HOME Investment Partnerships program and 
HOPE VI grants is absolutely the wrong direction to be going in right 
now. These cuts will harm our most vulnerable populations and we need 
to use our vote today to prevent this from happening.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2684, 
the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999. This bill contains funding for the 
science programs of the National Science Foundation (NSF), National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA).
  Last year, the Science Committee passed the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 1999, now Public Law 105-207. This was 
a multi-year authorization for NSF and provided funding and 
programmatic direction for NSF for fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
  H.R. 2684 provides $3.6 billion in funding for NSF for FY 2000. This 
is below both the level authorized in Public Law 105-207, and the level 
enacted for FY 1999. NSF is our Nation's premier federal basic research 
agency, and I believe its funding should be increasing, not decreasing. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee during conference to correct this funding shortfall.
  One priority within NSF is basic information technology (IT) research 
as outlined in H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology 
Research and Development Act (NITRD). NITRD is a long-term 
authorization for basic IT research introduced by a bipartisan 
coalition of members from the Committee on Science.
  Fundamental IT research has played an essential role in fueling the 
information revolution and creating new industries and millions of new, 
high-paying jobs. Maintaining the Nation's global leadership in IT will 
require keeping open the pipeline of new ideas, technologies, and 
innovations that flow from basic research. Although the private sector 
provides most IT research funding, it tends to focus on short-term, 
applied work. The federal government, therefore, has a critical role to 
play in supporting the long-term, basic research the private sector 
requires but is ill-suited to pursue.
  H.R. 2684 appropriates $35 million of new money specifically for 
NITRD. I appreciate the Appropriations Committee's initial support for 
what promises to be an important long-term research effort.
  As for the space program, I want to first thank the gentleman from 
New York, Mr. Walsh, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, for 
addressing some of the Science Committee's concerns during 
consideration of the bill at full Committee. The restoration of $400 
million in the full Appropriations Committee to space science was a 
good first step. We've come a long way since the President's FY 1997 
budget request, which presented the space community with the prospects 
of a 25% cut. That progress should not blind us to the importance of 
ensuring a healthy budget for space science. I look forward to working 
with the appropriators over the coming months to try and restore the 
remaining shortfalls.
  The International Space Station also demands our attention. We need 
to reverse the bill's proposed $100 million reduction to this vital 
program. While I share the appropriators' frustration with the 
Administration's management of this program, this cut could prove 
penny-wise and pound-foolish.

  Following continuous pressure from the Science Committee, the 
President has now decided to seek funding for a U.S.-built independent 
propulsion module. Cuts to the Space Station threaten this independent 
propulsion capability and could lengthen our dependence on the 
Russians, creating even bigger budget problems in the future.
  We also need to reverse the cuts to the Shuttle program. Over the 
last five years, NASA and the United Space Alliance have done an 
excellent job of making the Shuttle lean and mean, but you can only go 
so far. Cutting the Shuttle budget further may affect safety. So, I 
want to express my willingness to continue working with the 
appropriators now and in the coming months to ensure that the Shuttle, 
Space Station and Space Science are fully funded.
  Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization 
Act of 1999. That bill made low-cost access to space a higher priority 
by increasing funding for advanced space transportation. The Cox 
Committee reaffirmed that reliable, low-cost access to space was vital 
to U.S. national security, scientific, and commercial interests. I 
would hope that the final appropriations bill will be able to address 
this long-term need.
  I would also like to note the EPA budget in H.R. 2684. The 
appropriators have provided EPA with $7.3 billion in FY 2000. This is 
$105 million over the President's request. EPA's Science and Technology 
account is funded at $645 million, an increase of $2.5 million over the 
President's request.
  Finally, I want to take a moment to remember the former distinguished 
Chairman of the Committee on Science, Representative George Brown. 
George was a colleague and a friend and he recognized how critical 
science and technology were to the future of this country. While George 
and I differed on a number of policy issues, he always had the best 
interest of science in his heart. Let us honor his memory by working to 
ensure that science in America continues to move forward into the 21st 
Century.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the FY 2000 
VA/HUD appropriations bill. While I support the increases for veterans' 
medical care, this bill does more harm than good and should be 
defeated. This bill cuts vital programs like Housing Opportunities for 
People with AIDS, community development block grants, and brownfields 
cleanup and development. Section 8 housing receives only a minor 
increase and does not include funding for any new vouchers. My district 
alone will lose 475 housing units for low-income families, as well as 
276 jobs. On top of these cuts, this bill steals $3.5 billion from the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, we are playing with fire 
here. If this bill passes, the good that will come from the increase to 
veterans' medical care will be drowned out by the number of people who 
lose their housing because this Congress decided not to fund these 
critical programs. I urge a no vote on final passage of this bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has now expired for general 
debate.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 106-292. That amendment 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner) be allowed to offer an amendment 
identified as Filner No. 1 which is at the desk at any point during the 
reading of the bill for amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 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, 2000, and for other purposes, namely:

[[Page H7910]]

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       Compensation and Pensions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 
     61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other 
     officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and 
     certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as 
     amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 
     735; 76 Stat. 1198), $21,568,364,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,932,000 of 
     the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General 
     operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary 
     expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53, 
     and 55), the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: 
     Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an 
     actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to 
     ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding 
     of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
     provided to pensioners as authorized.

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us have worked hard to improve funding for 
veterans health care, the hallmark in this Congress.

                              {time}  1400

  I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their efforts 
in this regard. We began the budget process with a funding proposal 
from the administration that was totally inadequate. The $700 million 
add-on that the Republicans are now supporting sounds substantial, but 
it fails to meet the needs expressed by VA officials, both on and off 
the record.
  For this reason, I am going to reject this proposal for VA-HUD 
appropriations. It goes farther in meeting some of the challenges faced 
by the VA healthcare system, but not far enough.
  Unfortunately, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules 
failed to protect the Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment under the rule. 
The Edwards amendment would have more than doubled the additional funds 
the appropriators added to the VA healthcare system. Many VA leaders 
have agreed that these funds would have offered welcome relief to an 
overwhelmed VA hospital system facing growing pains. These additional 
funds would have expanded access to veterans not previously able to use 
VA hospital care.
  The VA could have eliminated serious problems with waiting times that 
confront veterans in primary care clinics and other clinics. It would 
have helped veterans obtain much needed medical supplies, such as 
wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids and eyeglasses, on a more 
timely basis. Additional funds would help VA face the emerging public 
health crisis of hepatitis C by adding funds to overextended 
pharmaceutical budgets. It would have assisted VA to restore some of 
the significant reductions that have been made in mental health 
services as well. It would have helped facilities meet the overwhelming 
need for long-term healthcare that our aging World War II veterans are 
now facing.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of our 
Nation's veterans by opposing this measure.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). It is now in 
order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
on Rules.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Cunningham

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-292 offered by Mr. 
     Cunningham:
       Under the heading ``home investment partnerships program'', 
     insert after the first dollar amount the following: 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Chemical Safety and Hazard 
     Investigation Board--salaries and expenses'', insert after 
     the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
       Under the heading ``Environmental Protection Agency--
     science and technology'', insert after the second dollar 
     amount the following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Under the heading ``emergency management planning and 
     assistance'', insert after both dollar amounts the following: 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Under the heading ``emergency food and shelter program'', 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by 
     $5,000,000)''.
       Strike the item relating to the ``Selective Service 
     System'' and insert the following:

                        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, $24,500,000: 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 induction of any person into the Armed Forces of the 
     United States.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again I would like to thank the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh). The gentleman has had a difficult time finding 
different offsets for different programs. Although we operate under a 
balanced budget and we feel for our children and grandchildren, it is 
best in the long run to go through this process.
  The amendment that I have restores the funding for the Selective 
Service program. We have done so with the support of the committee 
staff in going through what those offsets are. Each program is 
minimally impacted to the point that it does not affect their 
operation.
  I would like to thank both sides of the aisle for the bipartisan 
support. The Secretary of Defense, Secretary Cohen, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of staff, and all the service chiefs, along with all 
veterans groups, support this amendment to restore the Selective 
Service System.
  It is time-proven. Since World War I, we have had a strange dichotomy 
that our men and women fight our wars, and then we scale down. Then we 
have had to gear up, with dissipating effect.
  Active duty and reserves make up the primary source of our Nation's 
military. Selective Service is a third tier to prepare our sources and 
our military to gear up in time of national emergency. The words 
``Selective Service,'' for example, if we have a nuclear, chemical or 
biological attack similar to those that they have had in Japan and 
other countries, which, in my opinion is imminent, then the President 
can designate those healthcare workers, and that list would be used for 
those specifics.
  With that, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there a Member in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, not 
because I so much disagree with him as to the merits of the Selective 
Service system, but because I have great concerns about the programs 
that will be cut to achieve this increase. The Selective Service has 
the responsibility of ensuring the peacetime registration of young men 
to provide insurance that the armed forces manpower needs will be met 
should a crisis occur. Just as importantly, the Selective Service 
agency also preserves the capability of conducting a draft of doctors 
or nurses

[[Page H7911]]

or medical technicians should their expertise be required in a war with 
mass casualties, or in any action with mass casualties.
  All that being said, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the gentleman's 
amendment due to its offsets. First, what may seem to be a small and 
innocuous $5 million cut to FEMA's emergency management planning and 
assistance account will require reductions in response and recovery, 
emergency preparedness, fire prevention and important technology 
development.
  Likewise, my friend from California proposes to take $5 million from 
the emergency food and shelter program. The emergency food and shelter 
program, Mr. Chairman, is already severely strained, and such a cut 
would result in the following needs going unmet:
  Just over 1 million fewer meals would be served at soup kitchens 
across this country with that cut; there would be 168,000 fewer bed 
nights at shelters and 23,000 fewer bed nights through short-term 
vouchers at hotels; and over 7,000 evictions would not be prevented if 
the gentleman's amendment were adopted and these offsets imposed.
  Mr. Chairman, these are very real consequences that will be felt by 
very real people who happen to be in the greatest need in our country.
  That is not the whole story. This amendment would take $1.5 million 
from the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. This agency 
received its first year of funding just a few years ago and is already 
overburdened. In fact, I received a letter in late March from the 
Chairman of the Chemical Safety Board stating that the board does not 
have the resources to undertake further investigations this year. The 
16 percent cut envisioned by the gentleman's amendment would ensure 
that this agency will not be able to meet the demands that it faces to 
fulfill its mission.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will take $5 million from EPA's 
science and technology account. Many of my colleagues know of my own 
personal differences with EPA on many policy issues, but never on the 
need for sound science. At a time when there is a debate on global 
climate change, arguably one of the biggest scientific challenges ever 
faced by this agency, we need sound science now more than ever.
  While I recognize the importance of the Selective Service system and 
do hope that we can restore funding in conference or as this process 
moves forward, I cannot support doing so here with these offsets. 
Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we thought very carefully when we went through the list 
on potential offsets and tried to minimize. For example, the FEMA 
funding of $5 million, the most it has ever been funded is $10 million 
each year. This year it still leaves $105 million, still an increase, 
but reduces it $5 million. It is still more than the actual request.
  The $1.5 million from the chemical safety board, the board was funded 
at $9 million. OMB only requested $7.5. So this falls at level funding. 
The $5 million for EPA science and technology leaves $640 million left 
in that particular account. We feel that the deficit or lack of 
national security overrides the small offsets that we have in this 
particular bill.
  I would also say to the gentleman, this gentleman is not hard on any 
one of these cuts. In conference I would be happy to work with the 
gentleman in the reduction in different areas. To me the reduction 
areas are not as important as saving Selective Service.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by my 
good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. Chairman, in the discussion about Selective Service, a good deal 
has been said about the fact that military enlistment is dropping and, 
therefore, the need for Selective Service is greater. But the fact is 
in the economy we currently have in a country where there is relatively 
low unemployment and high paying job opportunities, young men do not 
want to go in the military service because of the low pay and low 
standard of living that has been associated with the military in the 
recent past. That is something that Selective Service does not address, 
but it is something that the Congress is addressing and should address 
in terms of making sure the members of the military are well paid for 
the dangerous job that they do.
  This is a matter of funds. We have a very difficult allocation, and 
we are talking about providing, or, if we honor the gentleman's request 
here, we would have to come up with $25 million basically for a 
mothballed program that is not delivering at the current time any 
services to us. At a time when we have such difficult budget 
constraints, it does not make sense to mothball a program that we can 
deal with in the eventuality that there is the need to find people to 
serve our country.
  The Congress spent months debating whether or not to go into Kosovo, 
and there would have been more than adequate time to go out and find 
the additional men, and we have not discussed women in the sense of 
Selective Service, but go out certainly to find men and women to 
provide service in defense of the country in a situation like that or 
any other.
  So I think this is the time in our history when we should use these 
funds to take care of the needs of the people of the country and stop 
paying to mothball this program.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to address this 
amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I compliment 
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), for deleting these funds, in this bill.
  This to me is a heroic step in the right direction. We have an agency 
of Government spending more than $24 million a year accomplishing 
nothing. We live in an age when we do not need a draft. We live in an 
age of technology that makes the draft obsolete. Not only is it 
unnecessarily militarily to have a draft, it is budgetarily not wise to 
spend this type of money.
  More importantly, I rise in strong objection on moral principles that 
the draft is wrong. In most of our history we did not have a draft. The 
gentleman from California early on pointed out that essentially since 
World War I we have had a draft, and that is true. Since in this 
century we have seen a diminished respect for personal liberty with the 
growth of the state we have seen much more willingness to accept the 
idea that young men belong to the state.
  That is what the registration is all about. I have a young grandson 
that had to register not too long ago, and he came to me and said, You 
know, ``they sent me a notice that I better go register. Why do I have 
to register, if they already know where I am and how old I am?'' That 
is the case. The purpose of registration is nothing more than putting 
an emphasis on the fact that the state owns all 18-year-olds.
  The unfortunate part about a draft is that too often draftees are 
used in wars that are not legitimate. This is so often the case. If 
this country faced an attack, we should have volunteers. We should all 
volunteer. But, unfortunately, the generation of politicians who 
declare the wars too often never serve. Some of them have not even 
served in the past. But they are willing to start wars that are not 
legitimate, and yet they depend on the draft. They depend on the draft 
for the men to go out and fight and die.
  The one really strong reason we should all reject the idea of the 
draft is it is so unfair.

                              {time}  1415

  Let us say an argument is made that it is necessary. I happen to 
believe it is

[[Page H7912]]

never necessary to violate somebody's liberty, but let us say there is 
a sincere belief that it is necessary to impose a draft.
  There is no such thing as a fair draft. This is why the sixties were 
in such turmoil in this country, because the elite frequently evaded 
the draft. If they are smart enough to get a deferment, they got off. 
Who suffers from the draft? The poor and the less educated, the inner 
city teenagers. They end up getting the draft, and they do not get the 
deferments. They cannot avoid it.
  It is very important that we consider not only this vote on fiscal 
reasons and where we are taking the money. Quite frankly, I would much 
rather see this money stay in the programs where, as a fiscal 
conservative, I would not have otherwise voted for those funds nay. But 
any funding of that sort is so much better on principle than voting to 
perpetuate a system that has no purpose other than to conscript.
  Conscription is not part of the American dream. It is not part of the 
American philosophy. It is not part of liberty. It is a totalitarian 
notion. Congress has the authority to raise an army, but it does not 
have the constitutional authority to enslave a certain group to bear 
the brunt of the fighting. A society that cherishes liberty will easily 
find its volunteer defenders if it is attacked. A free society that 
cannot find those willing to defend itself without coercion cannot 
survive, and probably does not deserve to.
  A free society that depends on the vicious totalitarian principle of 
conscription is, by its very nature, no longer free.
  We gradually lost our love for individual liberty throughout the 20th 
century as the people and the Congresses capitulated to the notion of 
the military draft. The vote on the Selective Service System funding 
will determine whether or not we are willing to take a very welcome, 
positive step in the direction of more liberty by rejecting the 
appropriations for the Selective Service System.
  There is no other vote that a Member of Congress can cast that 
defines one's belief and understanding regarding the principle of 
personal liberty than a vote supporting or rejecting the draft. This 
vote gives us a rare opportunity to reverse the trend toward bigger and 
more oppressive government.
  Yes, preserving liberty is worth fighting and even dying for, but 
conscription is incompatible with that goal. We cannot make men free by 
first enslaving them and forcing them to sacrifice their lives and 
liberty for the policies conceived by misdirected politicians and 
international warmongers.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Walsh). I know what a difficult time he has had. We 
happen to disagree on this issue; not only myself, but take a look at 
the supporters we have on this particular amendment.
  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs disagreed with the last speaker. The 
Secretary of Defense disagrees strongly with the last speaker, as does 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman of the defense 
authorization committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Defense, opposes it.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, opposes, which is very difficult, opposes his 
subcommittee chairman on this particular issue; not the bill, but on 
this particular issue.
  Also, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek) opposes, and I could go right on down the line with 
the bipartisan support.
  This is a controversial issue. This is the first time this has been 
debated. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has a full 
right to believe like he does. The independent view, however, is not 
the view, and the gentleman votes 99 percent against everything on the 
House floor. I expected no less. I would almost let him speak more 
because I think he makes our case.
  This is a time-proven event. If we have a chemical or biological 
weapons attack on the United States, with the selective service the 
President designates those health care workers, and then the Selective 
Service System would go in and select those people that are necessary 
to protect American citizens. Any delay in that would be foolhardy and 
would be very, very dangerous. The GAO said if we cut this program it 
would take up to an entire year to establish a system.
  I would tell my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I hope 
we never have to go to a subscription program. I hope that that 
emergency and the conflict against the United States never happens to 
that point. I do not think it will. It could in the future. If that is 
necessary, then we have to provide that backup. Think of the 
consequences if we do not. Millions of people, American citizens, their 
lives would be lost.
  This is a better insurance policy than we can have in almost any bill 
that we vote on. It is very important. It is the third tier to our 
active duty and our reservists.
  Peace and freedom is elusive. It is very fragile. In the history of 
the United States, in the history of the world, there has been 
conflict. Is there any Member here in this body that says that we will 
not be in another conflict in the next year? And with the threats out 
there that we have, we dare not not support this particular amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman has called attention to my voting record. I would say 
that if I could show the gentleman that I voted 100 percent for the 
Constitution, would the gentleman still complain about my voting record 
being 90 percent, 99 percent in opposition? Being for liberty is not a 
negative position.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim the balance of my time. I 
said the gentleman has the right to do so very much. I respect that. I 
just happen to disagree with the gentleman on this particular 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, to seek compliance in this, we are trying to 
let the potential registrars know what their requirement is so they do 
not break the law.
  President Carter in 1980 asked Congress if we would allow women to 
register. The Supreme Court found that Congress could restrict that 
because at that time we did not have women in combat.
  This issue has been debated five times, Mr. Chairman. Each time we 
have restored the Selective Service. We will restore it today, I am 
sure. I would also tell my colleagues who are opposed to this that in 
conference we will be happy to work off the different dollars in 
funding out of the different areas.
  I am not hard and fast on any of the offsets. The more important 
factor to us is the reselection and readministration of the Selective 
Service System.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, as a former local draft board 
member, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague from California. The most important decision Congress and the 
President can make is to send our young men and women to war. An all-
volunteer military sometimes makes it easier for the President to use 
the military forces liberally. The draft and Selective Service ensure 
that we should only go to war when it is of vital concern to our 
national security.
  At a time when our military services are failing to meet recruiting 
and retention goals, it is foolhardy and risky to eliminate the 
Selective Service System--a proven means of providing personnel to the 
Armed Forces during times of emergency. The men and women of our all-
volunteer armed forces have performed superbly since its inception. The 
all-volunteer force is a strong force, but it is also a fragile force. 
It relies on recruiting and retaining quality people. Our armed forces 
have been reduced to the point where the military struggles to meet all 
the commitments we place on it. It should be noted that during the 
recent air war in Kosovo, the Air Force announced a ``stop

[[Page H7913]]

loss'' policy, which suspended normal separations and retirements for 
men and women in critical career fields. Thankfully we did not have a 
ground war in Kosovo or another crisis of similar proportion at the 
same time. But if we did, I am sure that the Army and Marine Corps 
would likely have been forced to institute their own ``stop loss'' 
policies resulting in the possibility of sending soldiers and Marines 
with expired enlistment contracts into harms way.
  The all-volunteer force has not been tested during a conflict with 
mass casualties. Would young men and women continue to volunteer in the 
numbers required for the armed forces if the war in Kosovo produced 
significant casualties? What if the peacekeeping force suffers 
significant casualties? Hopefully they will continue to volunteer, but 
the Selective Service System is our nation's insurance policy for our 
national defense.
  Some people may say that the Selective Service System is obsolete and 
may not provide the type of individuals required for our hi-tech armed 
forces. But the Selective Service System provides a means to draft 
people with critical skills--such as doctors, nurses and other health 
care personnel, and in the future individuals such as computer 
technicians may be needed by our military to combat cyber-warfare.
  Providing for a strong national defense is one of Congress' most 
important responsibilities. The Selective Service System is part of our 
national defense strategy and I strongly urge all my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the Cunningham amendment.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this amendment and 
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  In the post Cold War environment, the Selective Service System 
represents a ``national security insurance policy'' in a very volatile 
and unpredictable world community. Right now, American service 
personnel are deployed in numerous contingency operations around the 
globe. North Korea, Iraq and the Balkans still exist as potential flash 
points that could very easily erupt in the near future. Each would 
require a sizable force structure.
  Simply put, the United States is militarily involved in three 
potential major theaters of war, despite having a force structure that 
is supposed to fight and win two near simultaneous major regional 
conflicts. This is truly alarming given the future uncertainty of 
military manpower as a result of the service's recruiting and retention 
problems. The Selective Service System is the primary source of leads 
for military recruiters when prospecting for candidates to join the 
all-volunteer force.
  Equally important, registration represents one of the few remaining 
obligations our nation requires of its young men. In the nation's 
changing cultural environment that places more emphasis on receiving 
benefits, than on service to one's country, elimination of this program 
will further erode the consciousness of the populace about military 
service and its obligation to defend our country.
  Finally, let me remind this chamber of its Constitutional obligation. 
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states ``that Congress shall 
have the power to . . . raise and support Armies, . . . to provide and 
maintain a Navy, . . . and to provide for organizing, arming and 
disciplining the Militia.'' I believe the Selective Service System is 
the foundation of this obligation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to remember their Constitutional 
obligation and vote to pass this amendment in order to adequately fund 
the Selective Service System.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cunningham-
Spence amendment which will strike the language included in this bill 
to terminate the Selective Service System. Despite popular convention 
that the Selective Service System is an anachronistic vestige of days 
long gone, the fact remains that our nation requires an insurance 
policy in case of a national crisis. The Selective Service would 
provide manpower to the military by conducting a draft using a list of 
young men's names gathered through the Selective Service registration 
process. This process has stood the test of time and has proved its 
worth in times of emergency. And while the Selective Service System has 
been portrayed by some as an anachronistic vestige of a bygone era, the 
fact remains that it is a necessary component for the defense of our 
nation. Admittedly, the professionalization of the military has in some 
cases obviated the need to have a national registration system. 
However, should there ever be another global calamity such as the kind 
that occurred twice in this century, with the Selective Service System, 
our government would have the ready infrastructure in place to provide 
the necessary personnel resources to defend liberty. This safety net is 
provided at minimal cost to the taxpayer and is well worth the 
investment. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Cunningham/Spence 
Amendment and restore the President's recommendation to fund the 
Selective Service System.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to 
the Cunningham-Spence-Buyer-Moran-Ortiz amendment to the Veterans/
Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for FY 00, H.R. 2684. 
While I believe the world remains a dangerous place and consider the 
selective service essential to ensuring the United States Armed Forces 
possesses adequate manpower for national emergencies, I cannot support 
legislation which cuts vital hurricane funding protection and 
environmental research for South Louisiana.
  By striking $5 million from the FEMA Management and Planning account, 
the Louisiana coast will be unable to implement a buoy system to 
monitor hurricanes as they approach our coasts. Furthermore, the FEMA 
Management and Planning account includes funding to develop a New 
Orleans hurricane evacuation plan for a Category 3 or greater storm. 
Surely, providing $1 million to take steps toward implementing an 
evacuation plan for New Orleans is a small price to pay both in terms 
of lives and money.
  In addition to the hurricane funding cuts, Congressman Cunningham's 
amendment would threaten to cut $1 million in funding from the 
University of New Orleans Urban Waste Management Center's budget. The 
UNO Urban Waste Management Center not only identifies the economic 
impact and benefits associated with various recycling programs, but it 
also provides additional educational institutions and national 
government agencies important waste management assistance.
  In a $92 billion appropriations bill, it is unfortunate that we have 
not learned our lesson from previous hurricane tragedies and targeted 
superfluous spending to continue the selective service, instead of 
vital protection for the citizens of South Louisiana.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a yes vote on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cunningham) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                         Readjustment Benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61, 
     $1,469,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court 
     award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation 
     involving the vocational training program authorized by 
     section 18 of Public Law 98-77, as amended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Veterans Benefits 
     Administration--readjustment benefits'', insert at the end 
     the following:
       In addition, for ``Readjustment Benefits'', $881,000,000 
     for enhanced educational assistance under the Montgomery GI 
     Bill: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the 
     entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such 
     amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific 
     dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an 
     official budget request transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his courtesy in 
making a unanimous consent request earlier in the day for another 
amendment which I will offer later, under our rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be offering a series of amendments to increase 
funding under Title I for the Veterans Administration. I do this 
because I believe this budget is drastically underfunded.

[[Page H7914]]

  From my personal relationships with the chairman, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), I know these gentlemen are strongly in support 
of our veterans throughout the Nation.
  They were given certain rules under which they had to operate. They, 
as the chairman points out, many times added a significant amount of 
money to the baseline budget. They wish they could add more. I wish I 
could add more. I have a series of amendments to make that wish come 
true.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that the veterans of this Nation got 
together early in our budget process and put together what they called 
an independent budget, a budget that called for about $3 billion more 
than the baseline for this year. That was a budget created by veterans 
for veterans. It was a very responsible, professional job.
  The Democrats on the Committee on Veterans Affairs tried to offer 
that budget in our authorizing committee as instructions to the 
Committee on the Budget. We were not allowed by the majority in this 
Congress, the majority in that committee, to offer that amendment. They 
made the case that $3 billion must be added to this budget.
  The chairman said that this budget offers the greatest increase in 
history to the veterans budget. That may be true, but that increase, 
number one, follows years and years of a real decline in our budget for 
veterans, so it follows probably the greatest decrease ever in the 
history of our veterans budget, and even their increase of $1.5 billion 
or so is only half of what responsible veterans organizations think is 
the minimum to keep our system going.
  Even with this largest increase, as the chairman states, it 
presupposes, as I think the gentleman knows, and as stated in the 
Republican budget resolution that was passed by this Congress, that 
that $1.7 billion increase this year presupposes decreases over the 
next 10 years adding up to almost $3 billion.
  If he is right in saying this is the largest increase in history, 
this is 1 year, and we will have larger decreases over the next decade. 
So my amendments, Mr. Chairman, are intended to redress this balance.
  I took the idea for this amendment, that is, to declare this 
situation an emergency and therefore not requiring an offset, I took 
this idea from the subcommittee that has their report before us. They 
brought to their full committee a report that said we must declare the 
veterans programs an emergency and ask for about $3 billion.
  I think they were right. I think their full committee was wrong in 
overruling that. My amendment declares the situation an emergency and 
asks for an addition of various amounts, according to the amendment I 
have before us.
  Veterans in my district in San Diego and across the country cannot 
understand what my colleague, the gentleman from San Diego, said 
earlier, that we should be meeting our needs of our veterans but we 
cannot because we have this Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We should not 
allow something that Congress passed to prevent us from doing the right 
thing now, when the situation has changed.
  They see a surplus of, depending on how we look at it, $1 trillion, 
$3 trillion. They say, why can we not have the $3 billion necessary to 
increase our health care and our benefit situation?

                              {time}  1430

  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment under consideration at the present 
time asks for $881 million to enhance the Montgomery G.I. bill. This 
program was named after one of our most legendary Members who retired a 
couple of years ago, Sonny Montgomery, from Mississippi. He suggested 
this program. It is time that we made it clear that the modern member 
of the Armed Services needs an increased benefit if he is going to take 
advantage of this benefit.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman 
will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. 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 
rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) want to reply to the point of order?
  Mr. FILNER. If I may reply just briefly, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I assume that legislating in the appropriations bill 
refers to making this an emergency designation. I would just point out 
to the gentleman from California (Chairman Walsh) that is exactly what 
he would have asked the Committee on Rules to support had his 
subcommittee prevailed in those considerations for emergency 
designation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that a proposal to designate an appropriation as 
``emergency spending'' within the meaning of the budget-enforcement 
laws is fundamentally legislative in character. It does not merely make 
the appropriation. It also characterizes the appropriation otherwise 
made. The resulting emergency designation alters the application of 
existing law with respect to that appropriation. Thus, the proposal is 
one to change existing law.
  On these premises, the Chair holds that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, by including a proposal to designate an 
appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within the meaning of the 
budget-enforcement laws constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2(b) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   Veterans Insurance and Indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 
     487, $28,670,000, to remain available until expended.


         Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That during fiscal year 
     2000, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000 
     in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for 
     specially adapted housing loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $156,958,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


                  Education Loan Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $3,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $214,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


            Vocational Rehabilitation Loans Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $57,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,531,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $415,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.


          Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as 
     amended, $520,000, which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              Medical Care

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing

[[Page H7915]]

     homes, and domiciliary facilities; for furnishing, as 
     authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient care and 
     treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities not under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department; and furnishing 
     recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral, 
     burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for 
     beneficiaries receiving care in the Department; 
     administrative expenses in support of planning, design, 
     project management, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department; 
     oversight, engineering and architectural activities not 
     charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or 
     providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under 
     the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise provided 
     for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees 
     and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal 
     expenses of the Department for collecting and recovering 
     amounts owed the Department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. 
     chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq.; and not to exceed $8,000,000 to fund 
     cost comparison studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C. 
     8110(a)(5),


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer:
       In the matter relating to ``Veterans Health Administration; 
     medical care'', after the second dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $350,000,000)''.

       In the matter relating to ``Public and Indian Housing; 
     revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope 
     vi)'', after the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $50,000,000)''.

       In the matter relating to ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; human space flight'', after the dollar 
     amount, insert ``(reduced by $2,080,000,000)''.

       In the matter relating to ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; science, aeronautics and technology'', after 
     the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $675,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) which will obviously do two things. 
One, this amendment will eliminate the funding for the over budget and 
ineffective Space Station. Secondly, more justly, more effectively, 
more compassionately, and more fairly allocate that $2 billion that we 
are going to spend on the Space Station this year to some programs that 
vitally need the funding, including almost $1 billion for debt 
reduction, $350 million for our veterans health care, and $50 million 
for distressed public housing for the poorest of the poor in America, 
where their budget was cut by $50 million in this bill.
  The Space Station, which continues to be billions and billions of 
dollars over the $8 billion initial funding figure, now the projections 
for the total cost will be well over $100 billion. It does not seem to 
matter how many delays and cancellations and inefficiencies are in the 
Space Station.
  But when we come to the poorest of the poor, when we come to the 
severely distressed, housing needs, we cut them by $50 million. So this 
amendment would restore some balance and some fairness to that.
  Why are we trying to cut the Space Station? The preeminent scientist 
in the mid-1800s Louis Pasteur said, and I will paraphrase him, I am 
getting closer and closer to the mystery, and the veils are becoming 
thinner and thinner and thinner. Well, the veils that have really 
camouflaged the Space Station over the last decade are now becoming 
very apparent.
  What is the status of NASA, let alone a Space Station that was 
supposed to cost $8 billion and now is well over $100 billion for the 
American taxpayer? Well, the status of NASA today is that, in about 
1989, the Space Station took about 4 percent of the NASA budget. In 
1999, Space Station will take almost one-fifth of every dollar that we 
appropriate for NASA. One-fifth of every dollar is going to be eaten up 
by the Space Station when there are so many other important programs 
within NASA that are doing magnificent work, whether it be Mars or 
Jupiter, whether it be follow-ups to our Cassinis and Rovers.
  These programs are legitimate science and helpful science, and we 
have a Space Station that continues to massively vacuum up every 
available dollar.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said that this $1 billion cut 
to NASA will probably result in the closing of two NASA space centers. 
The entire shuttle fleet today in September is grounded. We cannot put 
a shuttle up today. We are cutting shuttle safety. We are cutting back 
on science and aeronautics efforts within the NASA budget.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have to save the Space Station 
from consuming the NASA budget, and kill the Space Station, and put the 
money back into these other important programs as well as put $1 
billion toward debt reduction.
  Now, I also am very concerned about the severely distressed housing 
for the poorest of the poor in America. We allocated $625 million last 
year. This year, that allocation is $575 million, a $50 million cut.
  Now, one travels as a citizen or a Member of Congress to Chicago, in 
the South side, and one sees some of the 40-year-old housing that we 
put people in in America that are drug infested and rat infested that 
we are going to continue to ask people to live in those kinds of 
severely distressed public housing for another year and another year 
and another year; but we have unlimited funds for a Space Station for 7 
astronauts to be housed in when tens of thousands of Americans have to 
put up with housing that is unsafe, that is unsanitary, that should not 
be fit for children to have to live in, that some children risk having 
nose and ears bitten by rats. We should not be at this situation in 
America going into this new century.
  So this Roemer-Sanford amendment would shut down the Space Station on 
its own merits or lack of them and restore $350 million to veterans 
health, $50 million to severely distressed public housing, and $1 
billion for debt reduction.
  I encourage support for this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
and speak in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. It 
is a tradition here in the House of Representatives to take up the 
Roemer amendment every year in the VA, HUD bill. I began debating the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and his supporters, his dwindling 
number of supporters for his amendment, back in 1995 when I first got 
elected, both in the full Committee on Science, in the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics, on the floor of the House.
  I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his persistence 
in clinging to the idea that America should not be creating a permanent 
human presence in space and taking the next step that we should be 
taking in the process of human exploration of the universe.
  But, clearly, the will of the House has been consistently in 
opposition to this. Indeed, in many ways, I am very pleased he is 
offering the amendment again, because each year we get more and more 
votes against the amendment. There is a reason for that, Mr. Chairman.
  The reason is, number one, NASA is one agency that has been doing 
more with less. It is one of the few agencies in the entire Federal 
Government that has actually been responding to the demands of the 
Congress, and that is to reform and become more efficient. There is 
probably no better program than the Space Station program.
  Many people like to point out the so-called cost overruns in the 
Space Station program. The vast majority of those cost overruns are 
being generated by some of the problems that the gentleman alluded to, 
the problems with the Russians. But here are some things we need to 
consider about the Space Station. Number one, most of it has been paid 
for already in terms of construction.
  We are now at a point where we are ready to launch most of the 
elements. We are waiting for a Russian element; and when that element 
is on orbit, we will be in the process of constructing it, and then 
permanently putting a crew up there.
  I think one of the most important aspects of this is that it has 
excited school children all over the country. When I talk to teachers 
anywhere I go, they all say the same thing to me, that the thing that 
they find motivates their kids more than anything else to

[[Page H7916]]

study math and science, which is so critical to the future of our 
Nation, is when they use examples from space.
  Let me talk about one other issue. We all know the incredible 
scientific breakthroughs that accrue to the entire human race from our 
human space exploration program. Everybody is familiar with some 
products like velcro, for example, something we see everywhere, a spin-
off from NASA.
  Before I came to the U.S. Congress, I worked as a medical doctor. I 
am a physician. I can tell my colleagues that I used to see the impact 
of NASA in prolonging lives, in improving lives, the new prosthetic 
devices using materials that are direct spin-offs of our space program, 
in imaging technologies, in MRI and CAT scanning, in materials that are 
used for pacemakers and cardiac catheterization.
  Indeed, there are entire books published by NASA called spin-offs 
that are just filled with page after page of our investment in science 
and technology through our NASA investment.
  So here we are today. We have got Space Station elements stacked up 
and ready to go at Kennedy Space Center. We have got the Japanese ready 
to deliver their element. The Europeans are ready to deliver their 
section. The Canadians have already delivered theirs. This is the 
greatest scientific and engineering undertaking in human history. Much 
of it has already been expended.
  I say to my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let us 
proceed with the program, and let us make sure that we have a future. 
This country was founded by pioneers. The pioneering spirit dwells in 
the hearts of all Americans. The place where that pioneering spirit is 
fulfilled is within NASA and the work that the men and women of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration are doing on a daily 
basis.
  So I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Roemer-
Sanford amendment and continue our effort to explore the universe.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, again my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, joined by 
the gentleman from South Carolina, has proposed to terminate the 
International Space Station. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to that 
amendment. In years past this has been an ideological battle: Do we or 
do we not want to have a permanent human presence in Earth's orbit? 
Time and again this body has answered that question with a clear and 
increasingly resounding ``yes.'' Let me quickly run through recent 
votes on virtually identical amendments. Reviewing these votes will, I 
believe, demonstrate the support which the International Space Station 
does enjoy in this House.
  On April 29, 1992, the gentleman offered an amendment to delete 
authorization for Space Station. That amendment was defeated 254 to 
159. On June 23, 1993, the gentleman offered an amendment to terminate 
Space Station on the NASA authorization, the only close vote we have 
had on it, but that amendment was defeated 216 to 215. On May 30, 1996, 
the gentleman offered an amendment to the authorization bill to 
terminate Space Station and that was defeated 286 to 127. Again, on 
April 24, 1997, an amendment was offered to terminate the station and 
that was defeated 305 to 112. On July 29, 1998, an amendment to the 
appropriations bill was offered to strike funding. That was defeated 
323 to 109. And, finally, on May 19, 1999, just this spring, the 
gentleman offered an amendment to delete the station from the 
authorization bill, and that was defeated by a rather resounding vote 
of 337 to 92.
  My colleagues, this trend is very clear. Support is growing for Space 
Station in this body, not subsiding. The time has passed when we should 
even be considering termination of Space Station. We have had this 
debate on authorization and appropriations bills in years past, and 
each time proponents of the Space Station have prevailed. At some point 
there must be some finality to the decision to proceed. Mr. Chairman, I 
think that time has come.
  We have already spent more than $22 billion on Space Station, and 
that investment is beginning to bear fruit. Further, we are not the 
only country who has invested great sums of money into the Space 
Station. In addition to Russia, our international partners include 
Canada, Japan, Italy, France, and a number of other European countries. 
We must not suddenly pull the plug on the Space Station and leave our 
investments and those of our partners to go down the drain.
  All that aside, Mr. Chairman, this is no longer simply an ideological 
debate. As of December 6, 1998, when a team of American astronauts and 
Russian cosmonauts connected the Russian Zarya module with the American 
Unity craft, we have a functional Space Station in Earth's orbit. What 
is more, the long awaited launch of the Russian Service Module will 
take place late this fall. Once it has docked with the existing 
structure, the International Space Station will finally be ready for a 
human crew. Once that happens, the Space Station will begin to fulfill 
its mission. As a scientific and as a technological platform, it 
represents the next logical step in our efforts to explore space by 
providing the necessary experience with building and operating large 
space-based structures and with measuring the effects on humans of 
long-term space travel.
  The Space Station will also provide a platform for important 
scientific research, particularly medical and materials science 
research that require a microgravity environment. And like any other 
major undertaking at the cutting edge of technology, Mr. Chairman, the 
Space Station has had and will continue to have important spin-off 
benefits in terms of new products, new technologies, and new industrial 
processes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to end this debate once and for all, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and subsequent 
amendments to the Space Station.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from West Virginia 
for yielding to me and note his recollection of my tenacity but my 
losing record of Space Station.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would note that I 
admire the gentleman's tenacity.
  Mr. ROEMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to note 
for the gentleman, as he mentioned in his remarks, that we have spent 
about $22 billion on the Space Station, and I think that is absolutely 
accurate, as my friend always is, but that the General Accounting 
Office has estimated that the total cost of putting a space station in 
space will be over $100 billion. So we still have $80 billion to go.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I first of all want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon) because if I lived in the area around Cape Canaveral, 
Titusville, Florida, I would want the gentleman as my representative; 
but I do not, and so I find myself with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) on this amendment, reluctantly, because the gentleman has 
consistently been a tireless advocate for NASA and associated programs.
  I rise in support of this amendment, though, because I think it makes 
common sense, first of all simply from the standpoint of the budget 
caps. The budget caps have become a bad word here in Washington, but in 
essence they are the rails along the highway that set the course in 
terms of what we are willing to spend out of people's pockets, our 
folks back home. We may well go over those rails, we may break the 
budget caps; but if we are serious about the budget caps, we have to 
find a couple of areas wherein we say we actually want to limit the 
growth of Government in this, that, or some other program; and this is 
an amendment that actually does that.
  And, again, if we are going to stay true to those budget caps, doing 
that is incredibly important. And that is why, for instance, Citizens 
Against Government Waste have come out in support of this amendment, 
the National Taxpayers Union has come out in support of this amendment, 
and Taxpayers for Common Sense has come out in support of this 
amendment, because it helps us maintain some kind of fiscal discipline 
in this House.
  The second reason I think this amendment makes sense is that there

[[Page H7917]]

is a giant check floating around Washington, D.C. and on the top of 
that check are marked the words ``insufficient funds.'' And the person 
that that check is to be made payable to are the veterans of America. 
Because what I consistently hear from folks back home is that they 
fought in World War II, they had some friends killed in World War II, 
they either lost a limb or was shot, or maybe they were not even hurt 
at all but the promise made to them by the Federal Government was that 
when they grew a little older, when it came to retirement age, they 
would be taken care of. It turns out there are insufficient funds in 
that account.
  So this amendment does something about that. It moves $350 million 
out of this funding, which is truly out in space, to something very 
much in need here on Earth. And that is why this amendment is supported 
by the American Legion, it is supported by American Veterans, it is 
supported by Paralyzed Veterans of America, and it is supported by 
Vietnam Veterans of America, because it addresses this critical need to 
which right now there is a check marked insufficient funds.
  Thirdly, I support this amendment, going back to this theme of 
gravity, because we are looking, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) correctly pointed out earlier, we are looking at a program that 
basically started to the tune of around $8 billion or so and it has now 
grown to $100 billion. We are not talking about the elimination of 
NASA; we are not talking about the elimination of space programs. What 
we are talking about is one specific program. Because it is crowding 
out a lot of other priorities.
  Going back to the point that the gentleman from Indiana raised 
earlier, if we were $200 short toward fixing our car, let us say the 
fixup would supposedly cost $1,000, but the $800 would not fix the car, 
would we spend the other $800? Or if we were going to make an 
investment and it was going to cost $2,000, but the total investment 
would be $10,000, would we spend the other $8,000 if it was a bad 
investment? I think the answer is clearly no. And that is where we are 
on this, I think.
  Because this is what this amendment does: it moves $675 million of 
funding to things like, for instance, the Pathfinder, where for $250 
million we can get to Mars; for $75 million on the Clementine we can 
get to the Moon. It goes to some fairly effective space programs. In 
fact, it restores 62 percent of the cut that was in that particular 
account in NASA, and it moves to some things that we can actually do 
something about, I think some much higher priority items.
  Fourthly, I would just mention the issue of certainty. This has been 
touched on by several other folks. But anytime we have in the course of 
a critical path, whether it is in commerce or whether it is in 
business, a partner that is uncertain, is that the kind of investment 
we would make? At minimum we would put the brakes on and say let us 
look at this thing closely. I think that is where we should be with the 
Space Station.
  Finally, this is about priorities. There are a limited number of 
dollars in Washington. And while inspiring schoolchildren is nice, if 
we really want to motivate them, we should put dollars into the 
classroom. That is how we really motivate students. This is about 
priorities and, therefore, I urge its adoption.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Sanford amendment which 
would provide a $350 million increase for health care for our Nation's 
veterans. This will bring the total funding increase for VA health care 
to $2.05 billion. This amount is almost exactly what was proposed in 
the additional and dissenting views offered to the Committee on the 
Budget by Democratic members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
  I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), for 
inviting me to work with them on this important amendment. The 
amendment will allow the VA to make important enhancements in veterans' 
health care. It will provide funding to reimburse emergency care for 
veterans. This will ensure veterans are not reduced to second-class 
citizenry as other Americans benefit from a patients' bill of rights.
  It will allow critically needed funding to shore up long-term care 
and mental health programs, and it will assure adequate funds to 
provide screening and treatment for veterans who have the hepatitis C 
virus.
  Veterans who served during the Vietnam era are at a greater risk for 
having hepatitis C virus than any other Americans; yet I have had to 
request VA's Inspector General to investigate allegations that, because 
of underfunding, the VA has to ration the screening and care it 
provides to our Nation's heroes with this disease.
  I understand that this debate is about our priorities. I have 
encouraged and been encouraged by the efforts I have seen from Members 
on both sides of the aisle. It is high time we make our veterans a high 
national priority. A vote for the Roemer-Sanford amendment will allow 
us to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I just want to make two brief points.
  The gentleman from South Carolina who spoke in support of this 
amendment mentioned the $100 billion price tag on the Space Station. I 
just want to again reiterate for my colleagues a point I have made 
previously in this debate, and that is that that $100 billion includes 
the construction cost of the Space Station, all of the shuttle mission 
costs, and all of the research that is going on there.
  The gentleman's earlier assertion is akin, I would say, to someone 
who was going to purchase a house for $75,000 to say that they were 
actually spending around $300,000 because that is what it would cost 
for the cable bills and the electric bills and for the purchaser's food 
and clothing over the next 30 years. The actual construction cost on 
the Space Station is about $24 billion. I agree that is a lot of money, 
but it is money that has already been spent. We are ready to roll.
  And for the sake of abbreviating the debate here, we have had this 
debate for many, many years, I will conclude and again encourage all my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Roemer-Sanford amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friends, the issue of 
whether we want to end up in space or not is a valid issue. But we are 
ready to go with this system. The gentleman talks about cost, but this 
Space Station has been redesigned and redesigned and redesigned each 
time because of cuts in funding that has increased the funding. It is 
just like if we want to buy a system and we have to redesign it, then 
we have to almost double the cost. This would also kill the entire 
program.
  I, unlike my colleagues, believe that the spin-offs are going to be 
very important. Whether we are looking at the world and the temperature 
controls or the different environmental concerns that we have on Earth, 
I think we are going to look at those from space; and there has been 
good evidence to do that.
  In space, we can look at a cell from four different angles. On Earth, 
we can only do it in one dimension. The scientists at NIH and other 
areas have said that this kind of research is going to lead to the cure 
of AIDS and those different things in which they cannot even look at 
the cell division.
  So I would rise in opposition to my friend. And though his goals are 
noteworthy in the areas that he wants to increase, I think for us to 
turn our heads away from a program that is ready to go with all the 
other nations that are involved not only sends a poor message to the 
leadership of this country but to what we will be able to achieve in 
space itself.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words and speak in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee and the subcommittee recommendation 
already cuts NASA funding more than

[[Page H7918]]

any other program within this bill, with the exception of AmeriCorps 
and Selective Service.
  The committee, while severe in the minds of some, still allows NASA 
to operate its core programs. This amendment would make it next to 
impossible for NASA operations to be conducted and it may jeopardize 
other programs within NASA.
  The proposal to delete $2 billion of the funding for the 
International Space Station would effectively cause us to waste an 
investment of over $20 billion already expended in the program at a 
time when we are so close to making real progress on assembly and 
utilization of the on-orbit facilities.
  The figure of $100 billion has been mentioned a couple of times. But, 
in fact, the General Accounting Office, as recently as August of 1999 
suggested the total shuttle costs, including assembly, development, and 
all the science and research that have gone into this and the 
operation, GAO's estimate is $53 billion, not $100 billion. And so, 
almost all the major components of this station have been manufactured.
  I recently visited Kennedy Space Center and witnessed as they had all 
of these different parts and pieces brought together, parts that were 
assembled all over the world, Italy, Russia, U.S., Canada, and so 
forth, testing them out; and now the really exciting aspect of this 
project begins, the aspect of this project that young people all over 
the country are focusing on at space camp and in schools and colleges 
around the country where they are glued to what is about to happen as 
we start sending these parts and pieces up into space, assemble them 
within the telescopic eye of everyone on Earth. Everyone has an 
opportunity to participate and be excited in this program.
  And so the corner has been turned. It has been difficult and 
expensive to get to this point, but now we begin the assembly. But we 
have arrived at this point and it would be tragic if we are not to go 
forward and see the process through to its successful conclusion. A 
tremendous investment has been made and we should not waste it.
  Much has been said about keeping commitments, especially keeping 
commitments to veterans. We have done that, Mr. Chairman. We have, as I 
said, increased the veterans medical health care budget by an amount of 
$1.7 billion, the largest increase in the history of veterans medical 
health care; and we are proud of that commitment that the subcommittee 
bill has made. But we need to keep our other commitments, too, within 
this bill. Given the budgetary constraints that we have had, it has 
been difficult, but we have accomplished that. We need to keep the 
commitments made to our partners here.
  I urge that the Committee of the Whole reject this amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong and unchanged opposition to the Roemer 
amendment.
  I am a little bit uneasy about the things that I have to say, and I 
am trying to think of something nice to say about the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that I have not said before on all the other 
occasions that we have voted this amendment down.
  A good American? You bet. Bad amendment? Absolutely. Great Member of 
Congress? No question about it. Bad amendment? It is a cinch it is a 
bad amendment. Fine personal friend? I do not have any better. As a 
matter of fact, we probably voted together on every other item that 
comes before this Congress but this one amendment.
  He is a wonderful guy, just wrong on this amendment. I thought it was 
a bad amendment back when he first brought it up. I still think it is 
bad. This amendment, I think everybody knows, would cancel the Space 
Station just when we are really getting ready to reap the rewards of 
the investment we already made in this program, a huge investment we 
made.
  The first two pieces of the Station are already in place. Much of the 
rest of the Station is hardware that is stacked out there somewhere 
around Cape Kennedy that is ready to be put in place, much of it 
already purchased. It would be a colossal waste of money to stop the 
Space Station at this late date just as we are starting to assemble it. 
At the same time, crippling the Space Station would really cripple our 
ability to conduct the important biomedical and research plan for the 
Space Station. And that is one of the reasons I am still in Congress, 
to see the biomedical thrust in space.
  All of us have a reason for this. My reason is personal because I 
have had cancer in my family. I have had them wasting away in the 
cancer ward. I know the benefit of a biomedical thrust in space. We 
have it up there now. We have to keep it up there.
  I think the U.S. and the taxpayers of this country are ready for a 
break-through from space. I say to the gentleman who has the amendment, 
we are ready for something other than giant expenditures of money. I 
agree with him on that. We are ready for something other than ticker 
tape parades. We are ready for a break-through from space, like a cure 
for cancer, diabetes, or any of the other dreaded diseases.
  I think that certainly includes research that can help the veterans 
that are wasting away in VA hospitals with the dreaded diseases that we 
cannot cure today with the technology that we have.
  My colleagues all know that I am a supporter of the veterans and I am 
a supporter of fiscal responsibility. However, this amendment does 
nothing to help either cause. It should be defeated. I urge the Members 
to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words of those NASA supporters here 
today; and I rise, too, in opposition to the Roemer amendment, which he 
is offering for the second time this year.
  I have been here since the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) came 
here when we came into Congress together, and I have gone through this 
drill with him since 1992. And here we are again.
  I would say some good things about him, but the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall) has already said those good things about him. The gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and I are occasionally on the same side of 
the same issue but never never over this issue of NASA.
  I want to say to the chairman of the subcommittee, I am new to the 
subcommittee, as of course the chairman knows, and I have gone to the 
subcommittee because I looked forward to working with the chairman, 
looked forward to working with my ranking member, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) here. I appreciate both their words today 
here in support of NASA. Of course, I am troubled by the overall NASA 
mark in this bill and hope that this is just the beginning of what we 
will have to go through and that we will eventually correct funding for 
NASA in general. Because I think, in general, a $1 billion cut is an 
unacceptable cut.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I hate to take any of the valuable time of 
the Member because I know he has been waiting, but I would like to 
suggest that I look forward to working with him as we go through this 
process to try to find a way to meet the needs of a very important 
department in our Federal Government, and that is NASA.
  I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman regarding the 
funding of NASA, and I urge him to work with us as we go along.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that 
attitude and the attitude of the staff, as well. I know that this is a 
very difficult position for the chairman to be in, especially as our 
bill proceeds through this process late in the game. It has been very 
tough for us to come up with a passable bill. But I thank the gentleman 
for those remarks.
  To the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) as well, we have 
been through this battle over the Space Station, over efforts to fund 
NASA at an appropriate level that would allow science and the Space 
Station to do the things that we know they can do, and I appreciate his 
work here today, as well.
  I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) that he is 
wrong again. It is about time that he directs his attention to issues 
other than killing the Space Station. Let us look for

[[Page H7919]]

other ways that we can work together other than having to come to the 
floor like this and go through what I now consider a very unnecessary 
drill here.
  As my colleague knows, the prime contractor is 84 percent through 
with building the Space Station. I think it has already been said in 
this debate, if not in this debate, in the debate earlier this year, 
that by the end of this year half a million pounds will be in space. It 
is too late for us to turn our back on the Space Station program.
  We are fooling ourselves to think that if we end the Space Station we 
will help all of NASA. That is simply not true. If we pull the heart 
out of NASA through killing the Space Station program, then we will be 
pulling the heart out of the science program.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I too want to join in saying nice things 
about my colleague as well.
  My good friend from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and I have served on the 
Committee on Science for many years and had fought to restore money 
into the aeronautics account and worked on the Doppler radar systems 
together for our respective districts.
  This is just a difference of opinion. We have a bill before us that 
has great leadership in the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). But we have a billion-
dollar shortfall on the NASA budget the we have no money for 
AmeriCorps. We have $50 million less for severely distressed public 
housing for the poorest of the poor.
  I do not support tax increases, as my colleague does not. We voted 
together against tax increases. So the only way that we can try to in 
some kind of fair and principled way resolve our differences is for me 
to go after a program that has not worked very well, in my humble 
opinion, and put money into debt reduction, put money back into 
severely distressed housing, and put money back into veterans 
organizations.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because I do not have 
that much time to spare, I, of course, disagree with my colleague from 
Indiana. This is the wrong time to pull a further rug out from under 
NASA; and my colleagues are fooling themselves if they think by killing 
the Space Station they are helping other parts of this very difficult 
appropriations bill.
  We have got our work cut out for us. I might agree with my colleagues 
that funding should be restored to other programs within this bill, but 
killing the Space Station is certainly not the way to do it and this is 
certainly not the time to do it. I hope the Members coming back here 
after this long and enjoyable August break are not fooled by this 
annual battle that my colleague takes us through.
  Oppose the Roemer amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to follow up with some kind words of 
my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who shared so 
many hours on the Committee on Science. And I thought for a moment he 
might be born again, but I realize his commitment. And it gives me the 
opportunity to explain to the American people why this is a misdirected 
and wrong-headed approach to budget cuts or concerns about overspending 
because that is not what we are having in NASA.
  Let me also thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for their kind remarks in 
opposing this amendment and their leadership.
  Although joining my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer), I take great issue in the billion-dollar cut that we face in 
NASA overall in this bill, the VA-HUD bill, and think we need to fix it 
and hope that my colleagues will join me tomorrow in fixing it.
  But I say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), this particular 
amendment is again wrong, juxtaposed against the billion-dollar cut. I, 
too, am a supporter of AmeriCorps. I am a supporter of veterans health 
care. In fact, I have made a commitment and talked to my veterans in my 
community to indicate to them that I would always stand with them for 
the kind of funding that they need that pays the right amount of 
respect for what veterans have done for America.
  But at the same time, we are being foolhardy in cutting NASA, an 
agency that has cut itself. NASA has been one of the leanest and I 
would like not to say meanest but one of the most fiscally responsible 
agencies that the United States has had. And here we are attempting to 
cut NASA on top of the $924 million, almost a billion dollars, that is 
being cut.
  What does that mean? I used a metaphor just a few minutes ago. To 
build or rebuild the San Francisco bridge, for many of us who have 
admired this bridge, get it halfway over the water and simply say, 
stop.
  We realize that the Russian MIR is on its way to retirement. There is 
77,000 tons in space now. The Space Station is potentially utilized to 
do research in space that covers aeronautical research or aviation 
safety. It covers, as well, research in HIV-AIDS, high blood pressure, 
heart condition, and cancer.
  We still have not reached the point of determining the questions to 
those dreadful diseases or symptoms. At the same time we are talking 
about cutting NASA.

                              {time}  1515

  In addition, we are talking about people who have invested their 
lives to do research for America so that we can advance and make life 
better for Americans all over this Nation.
  We are a world power, and we stand strong as a leader in space and 
yet when we ask our partners, Italy and France and others, to be 
fiscally responsible and keep their commitment, look what we are doing 
today, cutting NASA again and then cutting it with a $924 billion cut.
  In light of the docking that we have seen this summer, and Frank 
Culbersome of NASA said that the docking that went on with the Space 
Shuttle Discovery was a historic moment and yet today we cut NASA. Just 
a few years ago, some of my colleagues in Congress, before I came, 
thought it was important to cut the super collider. Many of my 
colleagues may not remember that, but right now most of that research 
is going on overseas and some of us think we have missed the boat.
  We have been talking over the years about math and science prowess 
with our students and so NASA has been working with our educational 
systems, our school systems, our primary and secondary schools, to 
ensure that our children are excited about and competitive in math and 
science; and yet the dollars that I know my friend and colleague will 
be cutting will be cutting those very programs to make us competitive 
in the world and international markets. This is wrong headed and that 
is why I hope tomorrow to find the goodwill of my colleagues in 
restoring the $924 million that they will join me in recognizing that, 
though the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is consistent that his 
cuts, added to the $1 billion cut or almost $1 billion cut, is 
completely hypocritical in light of the $792 billion tax cut that the 
American people are not asking for, but yet my Republican colleagues 
persist in wanting to give.
  I would think that the American people want to see us fund veterans 
health care; and I would like my colleagues to support me in that, as 
well in housing, and to ensure that we remain competitive with the NASA 
leadership, provide our young people with training in science and math, 
be on the cutting edge of technology, provide us with safe travel and 
air travel, and ensure that the space shuttle and the space station 
stay on schedule and that we do not throw good money after bad and ruin 
the leadership role that the United States has had in space research 
and exploration.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my concern because in its present form 
the VA-HUD appropriation bill will surely and deservedly be vetoed. The 
path that this bill presents is a steady decline in services. Despite 
the current economic strength of our nation, this Congress is ready to 
approve a budget that cannot even spend the same amount as last year on 
housing assistance for low income elderly or families with children, or 
basic research funded by

[[Page H7920]]

NASA and the NSF, or on community service by our youth, or financial 
support for building businesses in impoverished urban and rural 
communities. During this time of prosperity we cannot afford these 
programs but we can afford an $800 billion tax cut.
  I am proud of the Johnson Space Center and its many accomplishments, 
and I am a staunch supporter of NASA and its various programs. NASA has 
had a stunningly brilliant 40 years, and I see no reason why it could 
not have another 40 successful years.
  There is no doubt, the spirit of NASA captures America's most 
treasured and valuable virtues--curiosity of the unknown, ingenuity 
beyond measure, and undaunted resolve in the face of adversity. That 
spirit is born out of the character of the NASA family, which is made 
up of agency employees and their loved ones, along with the business 
and residential communities of Houston.
  This year, the Appropriations Committee has recommended funding for 
NASA that is over $924 million short of the NASA request. This 
situation is untenable. We cannot underfund this important agency.
  In particular, the Committee's recommendation falls $250 million 
short of NASA's request for its Human Space Flight department. This 
greatly concerns me because this budget item provides for human space 
flight activities, including the development of the international space 
station and the operation of the space shuttle.
  I firmly believe that a viable, cost-effective International Space 
Station has been devised. We already have many of the space station's 
components in orbit. Already the space station is 77-feet long and 
weighs over 77,000 pounds. We have tangible results from the money we 
have spent on this program.
  Just this past summer, we had a historic docking of the space shuttle 
Discovery with the International Space Station. The entire world 
rejoiced as Mission Commander Kent Rominger guided the Discovery as the 
shuttle connected with our international outpost for the first time. 
The shuttle crew attached a crane and transferred over two tons of 
supplies to the space station.
  Frank Culbertson, NASA's deputy program manager for space station 
operations noted, ``The history of this moment shouldn't be lost on us. 
[This docking] was a very significant event.''
  Culbertson's words should not be lost on us mere months after he 
uttered them. History has been made, yet, we seek to withdraw funding 
for the two vital components, the space station and the space shuttle, 
that made this moment possible. We cannot lose sight of the big 
picture. With another 45 space missions necessary to complete the space 
station, it would be a grave error of judgment to impede on the 
progress of this significant step toward further space exploration.

  Given NASA's recognition of a need for increased funding for shuttle 
safety upgrades, it is NASA's assessment that the impact of a $150 
million cut in shuttle funding would be a reduction in shuttle flight 
rate, specifically impacting ISS assembly. Slowing the progress of the 
ISS assembly would defer full research capabilities and would result in 
cost increases.
  Both the International Space Station and the space shuttle have a 
long, glorious history of international relations. We can recall the 
images of our space shuttle docking with the Russian Mir space station. 
Our nations have made such a connection nine times in recent years. 
This connection transcended scientific discovery: it signified the true 
end of the Cold War and represented an important step toward 
international harmony.
  The International Space Station, designed and built by 16 nations 
from across the globe, also represents a great international endeavor. 
Astronauts have already delivered the American-made Unity chamber and 
have connected it to the Russian-built Zarya control module. Countless 
people from various countries have spent their time and efforts on the 
space station.
  To under-fund this project is to turn our backs on our international 
neighbors. Space exploration and scientific discovery is universal, and 
it is imperative that we continue to move forward.
  I plan to offer three amendments that would add $15.5 million to the 
Human Space Flight section of the NASA budget because it is imperative 
that we provide adequate funding for the Human Space Flight's programs. 
Offsets for this funding would come from the American Battle Monuments 
Commission, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and 
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance.
  These amendments do not come close to repairing the damage done by 
the Appropriations Committee, but they will provide much needed 
assistance, and they will show NASA, America, and our international 
neighbors that we do care about space exploration and our glorious 
history that we continue to create.
  I also denounce the cuts made by the Appropriations Committee to 
NASA's science, aeronautics, and technology. This bill cuts funding for 
this program $678 million below the 1999 level.
  By cutting this portion of the NASA budget, we will be unable to 
develop new methodologies, better observing instruments, and improved 
techniques for translating raw data into useful end products. It also 
cancels our ``Pathfinder'' generation of earth probes.
  Reducing funding for NASA's science, aeronautics, and technology 
hinders the work of our space sciences, our earth sciences, our 
academic programs, and many other vitally important programs. By under-
funding this item by $449 million, the Appropriations Committee will 
severely impede upon the progress of these NASA projects.
  Some of the largest cuts in the bill come in the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. Reductions in HUD programs below the 
prior year's level are spread throughout the bill. Of the 24 on going 
accounts within the HUD title, the bill increases spending for one, 
freezes 9 at the 1999 level, and cuts the remaining 14 below 1999. Some 
of the cuts are small, others are substantial. A recent study on 
housing needs found more than 5.3 million very low income families with 
worst case needs who were receiving no federal housing assistance at 
all.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and, 
for that matter, I rise in opposition to the bill as it is currently 
drafted. First, with respect to the amendment, in a press conference 
that a number of us just held where we talked about the bill, the 
underlying bill itself and how it funds NASA, one of my colleagues 
talked about how this bill was like eating the seed corn.
  Well, this amendment, unfortunately, while well intentioned by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is a little bit like cutting your 
crops down before they are harvested. We have already put the seed in 
the ground. We have already fertilized the ground. We have already 
raised the crops and we are about to harvest those crops; and instead 
of doing so, we are just going to burn the field; and we are going to 
burn our entire investment in this program where we have already had 
some yield, but before we get the full potential of the crop or of the 
product, and I think that would be a terrible mistake.
  If the gentleman believes, and I totally disagree with this, but if 
the gentleman believes that the funding is a waste of taxpayer dollars, 
what a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars it would be to destroy the 
project right now and get nothing in return for it.
  I think that would be a very big mistake, and I would hope that our 
colleagues would once again reject this amendment.
  Now, with respect to the underlying bill, I think the fact that we 
are cutting about a billion dollars out of NASA or proposing to cut 
about a billion dollars out of NASA, cutting about a quarter of a 
billion dollars from the National Science Foundation is really wrong 
headed, and I know that the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member and the chairman of the committee who is on the floor 
tried to do the best they can with what they have, but this bill and 
perhaps the coming Labor HHS bill, if that ever gets to the floor in a 
singular form, is a product of a failure on the part of the Congress to 
adhere to the agreement that we made in the 1997 Budget Act.
  I sat on the Committee on the Budget in 1997 when we wrote that; and 
the fact is over the last couple of years, through abusive use of 
emergency spending, through a highway bill that was incredibly bloated, 
and through actions taken this year, we have blown through the caps in 
discretionary spending at the front end and now we are taking it out on 
the back end, and I do not think there is anybody in the Congress who 
truly believes at the end of the day that we are going to abide by 
that.
  In the meantime, all we are doing is making these illusory cuts and 
saying that we are going to make these cuts which really send the 
country backwards. I think it would be a mistake. We ought to be making 
an investment in the future rather than consuming today, but the way 
this bill is written we would be consuming our seed corn and not 
investing for the future.

[[Page H7921]]

  I would hope that my colleagues would reject the Roemer amendment and 
would reject the underlying bill as it is currently drafted, if it 
cannot be corrected during the amendment process.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment to terminate the International Space Station.
  We go through this exercise every year and the outcome is a foregone 
conclusion. When Mr. Roemer offered a similar amendment to the 
authorization bill this spring, he could not even muster 100 votes. We 
beat back this amendment by the biggest margin in the Space Station's 
history. We will do so again. But, there are a few points we should 
make clear before doing so.
  First, the gentleman has challenged Congress to set priorities. The 
fact is, we have. Scientific research aboard the Space Station is--and 
has been--our top priority for the civil space program. Congress has 
made that clear on a bipartisan basis for years.
  Second, there is hardware in orbit. Right now, the first and second 
elements are assembled in space and circling the Earth. Terminating now 
would send the program to a fiery ending as those elements burn up upon 
re-entering Earth's atmosphere. That's not the right beginning to the 
next millennium.
  Third, we have already spent the bulk of the Space Station's 
development funding. We've passed the roughest financial hurdles and 
invested some $20 billion getting the hardware on the ground ready for 
launch. You can see that hardware at the Kennedy Space Center right 
now. It belongs in orbit, not in a museum.
  Finally, there are 16 other countries counting on us to finish the 
Space Station. They have committed billions to this project because we 
made a pledge to them. That's a pledge we should not break. While it is 
true that Russia has let the partnership down and that the 
Administration's decision to put Russia in the critical path has cost 
the taxpayers more money, two wrongs don't make a right.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to do what is right for our 
country and vote down the Roemer amendment again.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       $19,006,000,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, $635,000,000 is for 
     the equipment and land and structures object classifications 
     only, which amount shall not become available for obligation 
     until August 1, 2000, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2001.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
       In the paragraph in title I for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Medical Care, 
     account--
       (1) after the second dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $730,000,000)''; and
       (2) strike the period at the end and insert a colon and the 
     following:
     Provided further, That any reduction in the rate of tax on 
     net capital gain of individuals or corporations under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted during 1999 shall not 
     apply to a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2001.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), 
the ranking member, for the plus-up that they are responsible for on a 
bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations for VA health care. 
Because of these two gentlemen, veterans will get care that they 
otherwise would not have received. I, among others, appreciate that 
effort.
  But my amendment is very straightforward. It tries to more adequately 
fund VA health care. It says that Congress should delay for one year 
the capital gains tax cut recently passed in this House and take that 
$730 million and add it for additional spending for VA health care so 
that we can at least try to maintain present levels of services for our 
Nation's veterans.
  What this amendment says, in effect, is a Congress that can afford to 
offer Bill Gates a multimillion dollar if not a billion dollar tax cut 
ought to be able to afford to fully and adequately fund veterans health 
care.
  Let us look at where we are today, even with the $1.7 billion plus-up 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have been responsible for pushing. Let me 
quote Andrew Kistler, national commander of disabled American veterans. 
``While we greatly appreciate the $1.7 billion increase over the 
administration's budget request contained in the VA appropriations 
bill, it does not go far enough to provide for the health care needs of 
a sicker, older veterans population.''
  Let me read from the American Legion a letter dated August 4 of this 
year from Steve Robertson, director of the National Legislative 
Coalition. He says: ``The VA currently has an extremely long list of 
veterans seeking various types of long-term care. The VA's budgetary 
constraints limit its ability to effectively and efficiently meet their 
needs. Currently, waiting times for appointments in the VA system are 
staggering. We are not talking days or weeks but months. If a veteran 
needs a specialist, the wait is even longer.''
  He goes on to say: ``The American Legion supports this amendment and 
any waiver that may be in order for the amendment to proceed to the 
floor.''
  Mr. Chairman, virtually every major veterans organization in this 
country has come out in support of this amendment which failed by only 
one vote in committee, and I would urge its passage on this floor.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, who has been a 
great leader and fighter on behalf of veterans, the ranking member of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to add $730 million 
for veterans medical care in fiscal year 2000. This amendment, which 
the Republican members of the Committee on Rules failed to protect 
under the rule, assures America's veterans of the health care they need 
and at the level they deserve.
  To offset the costs of additional funding for veterans health care, 
the Edwards amendment would delay implementing for one year a proposed 
cut in the capital gains tax, a fraction of the nearly $800 billion tax 
cut being proposed and passed by this House.
  The Edwards amendment is about our national priorities, providing 
additional resources for our veterans medical care, for delaying a tax 
cut for the wealthiest Americans for 1 year. For me, the choice is very 
simple. I strongly support the Edwards amendment for the same reasons I 
voted against the rule on this bill. The Congress needs to provide a 
higher priority to veterans medical care than tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans. Congress must take the initiative to fund VA and 
allow it to rebuild its most excellent programs, those that serve the 
veterans who were injured on the battleground, those that have borne 
the battle. The Edwards amendment will allow VA to do this.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the measure that 
supports America's veterans. I appreciate the leadership of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) on this issue.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) for offering this amendment. It shows clearly that this 
Congress is playing off the needs of the veterans against the politics 
of tax cuts for those who least need them. That has been made very 
clear.
  Now, we do not have any misunderstanding about what is going to 
happen to the gentleman's amendment. It is going to be ruled out of 
order on a technicality and the veterans all over this Nation should 
know that this Congress on a technicality will not pass additional 
funds for veterans health care.

[[Page H7922]]

  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by Chet Edwards to add $730 million for veterans' medical care 
in fiscal year 2000. This amendment, which the Republican members of 
the Committee on Rules failed to make in order under the rule assures 
America's veterans of the health care they need delivered at a level of 
service they deserve.
  To offset the cost of providing the additional funds for veterans' 
health care, the Edwards amendment would have delayed implementation of 
a proposed cut in the capital gains tax for one year, a fraction of 
nearly $800 billion tax cut passed by this House. I ask members of this 
body, can't Americans wealthy enough to benefit from this tax cut 
afford this small sacrifice to assure our veterans won't have to deal 
with delays and barriers in their access to high-quality health care? 
The Edwards amendment is about our national priorities. Providing 
additional resources for our veterans medical care programs or delaying 
a tax break for the wealthiest Americans for one year. For me this 
choice is simple. I am strongly supporting the Edwards amendment for 
the same reasons I voted against the rule on this bill. This Congress 
needs to provide a higher priority to veterans medical care than tax 
breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
  Earlier this year, the Committee on Veterans Affairs considered 
fiscal year 2000 funding for VA health care. Unfortunately, I was 
denied the opportunity to offer an amendment providing more funding 
than proposed by our Chairman. The Edwards amendment will provide 
approximately the same increase in discretionary funding for VA next 
fiscal year, $2.4 billion, as I had earlier sought to provide. There 
remains a critical need for this significant increase in funding.
  Our veterans know this. Their service organizations have steadfastly 
supported efforts to add funds to the VA health care budget. The 
American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed Veterans of 
America sent letters to the Rules Committee in support of the Edwards 
amendment being made in order. A coalition of veterans' groups had 
earlier supported the increased funding level I planned to propose to 
the VA Committee.
  The last few years in VA health care system have been pivotal ones. 
VA has reformed its delivery system, bringing its acute care system 
into line with modern health care practice. But clinicians and patients 
alike have begun to cite waiting times and other problems with access 
to care that have been affected by this sea of change. I, and other 
Democratic Members met with members of the Administration to discuss 
this vital need. These meetings ultimately contributed to Democrats' 
success in securing a revised plan offered by Vice President Gore to 
add a billion dollars to the Presdient's FY 2000 proposal for VA health 
care and construction. I believe the President's revised budget 
proposal was critical to bringing awareness of the emerging crisis 
confronting the veterans' health care to Congress and I thank them for 
their willingness to hear the concerns of Members and take appropriate 
action.
  There is still a case to be made for increasing the VA health care 
budget. Unfortunately just prior to the August District Work Period, 
this House voted for a rule that failed to protect the Edwards 
amendment being in order. This party-line vote is ``deja vu all over 
again'' in helping us to help America's veterans. I remain incredulous 
that this Congress would knowingly choose a brief delay in the capital 
gains tax cut over adding funding that will better assure high-quality 
veterans' programs and I certainly understand why Republicans have thus 
far taken steps to avoid this debate.
  VA needs this money. Members are aware that VA's progress in 
implementing some positive and necessary changes has come at a price. 
Shifting health care practice styles are eroding some of the VA's best 
programs--its long-term care programs, it rehabilitative and extended 
care for seriously disabled veterans, and its mental health care 
treatment for veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or substance 
abuse issues. We are now at a point where we must restore certain 
programs to their past distinction. Congress must take the initiative 
to fund VA and allow it to re-build its most excellent programs--those 
that serve the veterans who were injured physically or psychically on 
the battleground--those that have borne the battle. The Edwards 
amendment will allow VA to do this. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting a measure that supports America's veterans. Vote for the 
Edwards amendment.

                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                     -----------------------------------
                                        Medical care    VA discretionary
                                        appropriation       programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's original request........              17.3              19.8
VA Committee Democrats..............              19.3              22.1
VA Committee........................              19                21.5
Budget Committee....................              19                19
President's revised request.........  ................              20.8
Appropriations Committee............              19                21.5
Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment....              19.7              22.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield time to the gentleman 
for the purpose of discussion. My understanding was that the gentleman 
was going to withdraw this amendment. Is that correct?
  Mr. EDWARDS. No, I did not make that representation to anyone.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that he would withdraw 
this amendment. Since that is my understanding, I will insist on the 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change the existing law and constitutes legislation in 
an appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I might add that this is not a real choice. This is 
anything but a real choice. First of all, this money is not available. 
I would suspect that the gentleman who proposes the amendment would 
oppose the tax increase in the first instance and would not vote for 
it. So to take funds that are out there somewhere in the ether and 
offer them for veterans health care is pretty disingenuous to the 
veterans.
  What we have offered is real money. We have offered to provide $1.7 
billion to the veterans to increase the medical care that we have 
promised them. This is keeping the commitment that we made. The 
President decided not to keep that commitment and the Congress, I 
believe, has stood up and offered to make the veterans medical 
administration whole.
  So I would insist, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order be taken 
against this. This is truly, in my view, authorizing on an 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) is 
recognized on the point of order.
  Mr. EDWARDS. First of all, let me again say the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
did as well as they could for veterans health care funding given the 
constraints of the budget that have been built in by the tax bill.

                              {time}  1530

  I do not understand, frankly, the point that this would not be real 
money. If it is not real money, then it should not have been part of 
the tax bill that was passed and has been talked about greatly by my 
Republican colleagues over the last 30 days. If it is real money, which 
I assume it was when they voted for this in the tax cut bill, then it 
should be real money, just as real for veterans health care as it could 
be for tax cuts.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. My point, Mr. Chairman, is, and I do not mean to argue, 
but my point is that this is not real money until the President signs 
that tax cut into law, and I think he would agree that the President 
has made his position fairly clear on that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Right, but I guess the point I would like to make is 
that if the Republican leadership felt $730 million was available for a 
tax cut, capital gains tax cut for 1 year for some of the wealthiest 
families in America then I would say I would argue that money is 
available, should be made available, to veterans.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. EDWARDS. I do have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. EDWARDS. It is about the question, Mr. Chairman, one of the 
questions that has been raised: Is this legislating on an appropriation 
bill? I think in the committee discussion it came up, the point that 
perhaps there were some tax provisions in an appropriation bill.
  My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is that on October 21 of last 
year, less than 1 year ago today, public law 105-277 was signed into 
law. This was the omnibus appropriations bill, and could I inquire to 
the Chair how was it that that appropriation bill allowed 6 different 
provisions dealing

[[Page H7923]]

with research and other tax provisions, the research credit, the work 
opportunity tax credit, the welfare to work tax credit, contributions 
of stock to private foundations that tax credit, subpart F exemption 
for active finance and income tax credit, and finally the disclosure of 
returned information on the income contingent student loans. All of 
those provisions were legislating in effect and dealt with the issue of 
taxes, and my question is:
  What rules of this House allow the House to pass less than 1 year ago 
an appropriation bill that funded, as my colleagues know I think it was 
$37 million for King Cove, Alaska, a community of 800 people, and yet 
today the House might not be allowed to offer this tax provision which 
pays for the veterans health care increase on a similar appropriation 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The matter before the House is the point of order 
raised by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the Chair will 
not comment on waivers that may have been granted for prior proceedings 
in the House on other measures.
  Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) wish to be heard 
on the point of order?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just rise to commend the gentleman for 
offering this amendment. I wish it were in order, and I wish the Chair 
would rule it in order because it joins better than any other amendment 
or joins better than any other amendment I have heard the issue that is 
before us in the Congress and the Nation at large, and that is, as my 
colleagues know, how are we going to deal with this surplus; tax cuts, 
or are we going to fund veterans, homeless, education, health care? I 
commend the gentleman for successfully doing that, I am afraid the 
amendment is not going to be in order, but I think this issue that it 
raises is very important and is the issue as we move forward policy in 
the next year.
  Mr. EDWARDS. If I could just finish very, very briefly, I guess my 
point, Mr. Chairman, if this is ruled out of order is that I want to 
make it clear that this House had the right to, through its Committee 
on Rules, to write a rule that would have made this amendment in order 
that was supported by virtually every major veterans organization in 
America, and a very similar thing was done on issues I thought were far 
less important less than a year ago on a very similar appropriations 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation 
of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. Since the gentleman from Texas has argued 
the tax nature of the amendment. The amendment also constitutes a tax 
measure in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', insert at the end the 
     following:
       In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $3,000,000 to provide a 
     presumption of service-connection for veterans who were 
     exposed to Hepatitis C risk factors during military service 
     and now have Hepatitis C: Provided, That the Congress hereby 
     designates the entire such amount as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That 
     such amount shall be available only to the extent of a 
     specific dollar amount for such purpose that is included in 
     an official budget request transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress and that is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for courtesy, 
for discussions of these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another in a series of amendments that I am 
offering this evening to show that the veterans health budget and the 
Veterans Administration budget in general is greatly underfunded.
  We have a chance in this Congress to fund adequately what veterans 
need. We know what that figure is. All the veterans organizations of 
this Nation came together to recommend to us what they call the 
independent budget, a budget that recommended $3 billion more than the 
baseline we have been dealing with.
  The President's budget that was submitted to this Congress was 
inadequate. It was $3 billion under what this recommendation was as it 
kept a straight-line budget. The budget, as recommended by this 
committee, does put in an additional 1.7 billion but that is only 50 
percent of what all the veterans organizations say they need, and I 
might point out, Mr. Chairman, that that 1.7 billion increase 
presupposes about a $3 billion decrease for veterans programs over the 
next 10 years.
  So what we see here is the biggest cut in veterans funding over a 
long period of time.
  Now we have argued on this side of the aisle for additional funding 
that would do some things for our Nation's veterans that just will not 
be able to be handled if this budget goes through. We will not be able 
to have care for veterans who are involved in radiation risk activities 
and subsequently develop cancer. We will not have funding to increase 
long-term care programs for our aging veterans. We will not have 
funding to restore the VA psychiatric wards and an increase in mental 
illness research education. We will not have funding to keep 
Alzheimer's veterans in hospitals. We will not be able to treat the 
Persian Gulf war veterans who have come down, tens of thousands of 
them, with an unexplained illness; and, Mr. Chairman, we will not have 
the money as this amendment will try to correct to fund new health care 
initiatives for veterans suffering from hepatitis C-related illness.
  Now this is a new situation, Mr. Chairman, and is why I have 
designated this funding as emergency. Hepatitis C is a disease which 
was only recently identified by reliable laboratory tests. So in the 
past, there has been no way to diagnose it at the time when veterans 
became infected. This infection may not have produced any symptoms or 
mild ones similar to a flu at the time of service to our country. The 
virus hides latent in the body for many years and may not show up for 
20 or 40 more years after the initial infection.
  Veterans at a particular risk for the disease include those who 
received blood or blood products prior to 1992 and veterans who worked 
in health care occupations are exposed to blood in combat situations. 
Veterans who were infected many years ago are now showing symptoms of 
the disease, and too often this disease, Mr. Chairman, is fatal. A 
fatal disease, hepatitis C, is now known to infect hundreds if not 
thousands of our veterans, and we do not put the money in for this 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would say that we have an emergency 
medical situation, that we should fund $3 million to provide funding 
for service- and presumed service-connection for veterans who are 
exposed to hepatitis C and make sure that we treat our veterans with 
the respect and commitment that we should.
  Mr. Chairman, I know this amendment has been challenged by point of 
order. I assume that that challenge will be upheld by the Chair. At 
some point in the evening I will, as the Chairman knows, challenge the 
Chairman's interpretation of these points of order, but I am hoping 
that this Congress will not on a technicality, because we know we 
legislate on appropriation items all through the course of this 
process, will not on a technicality refuse the refunding for veterans 
who have hepatitis C and face death unless we come to their aid.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI. And if I might add, Mr. Chairman? The gentleman 
who offers the amendment is a good and respected member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I

[[Page H7924]]

would humbly submit that this is where these items should be discussed. 
These are authorizing issues. What he is proposing, this and several 
others to follow, are legislative riders.
  Now we all hear the horror stories about legislative riders. These 
are not necessarily horror stories, but legislative riders do not 
belong on appropriation bills. Do they happen? Of course they happen in 
the course of events. But the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is a very 
activist committee. Members from all over the country really need to 
sit down and hash these things out and then come to the Committee on 
Appropriations and tell us what the committee wants us to do, and they 
have not done that in this case. An individual Member can have a pet 
project; they can have a pet policy. Basically the process is for the 
committee to come to a conclusion, establish priorities, set an agenda, 
and then bring it to us to help to get the funding, and that is the 
proper course of events here, Mr. Chairman.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FILNER. In response to my good friend from New York, Mr. 
Chairman, the advice that he gave me is good advice. In fact, the 
Democrats on the Committee on Veterans Affairs tried to offer a budget 
which included these items. Not only did we not fail on that vote, we 
were not permitted a vote by the chairman of that committee, and as the 
budget rules point out, unless the budget that is accepted by the 
Committee on the Budget includes these items, the authorizing committee 
cannot later add them.
  So the gentleman's advice is good. I wish the chairman of the 
authorizing committee had allowed us to have a vote on these issues so 
we could include them in the budget, and now I am asking for an 
emergency designation to make sure that we keep our commitment to our 
Nation's veterans.
  The CHAIRMAN. As stated by the Chair earlier today, a proposal 
designating an appropriation as emergency spending within the meaning 
of budget enforcement laws constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', insert at the end the 
     following:

       In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $4,600,000 to provide 
     pay parity for dentists with physicians employed by the 
     Veterans Health Administration: Provided, That the Congress 
     hereby designates the entire such amount as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided 
     further, That such amount shall be available only to the 
     extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that is 
     included in an official budget request transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress and that is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the courtesy offered by 
the Chair I will be very brief and point out that the $4.6 million 
included in this amendment goes to establish parity for the dentists 
who are employed by the VA, parity with physicians. I embody this 
amendment in legislation which I called: ``put your money where your 
mouth is.'' That is that we ought to be funding dentistry where we have 
an enormous recruitment and retention problem parity with physicians. 
Over the past 5 years, in fact, VA has experienced a decline of 
dentists from 830 to 677, and the turnover rate in the last 2 years has 
been over 11 percent. Young and mid-career dentists are leaving the VA 
in increasing numbers, and there are fewer higher qualified applicants 
available to fill these positions.
  We must, I think, establish parity and make sure that dentists in the 
VA system are given the same pay respect that physicians are.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI, and if I could just briefly explain the opposition?
  We really are not opposed to this. Unless there is authorization, 
specific authorization that would preclude this from happening, the 
Secretary of the Veterans Administration should be able to do this, and 
I do not know specifically whether or not there is authorization that 
is specific to this expenditure, but it would seem to me that if this 
was a priority for the Veterans Administration and the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, it should happen. But this is the wrong place to do 
it, Mr. Chairman, and I respectfully request that the point of order be 
upheld.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). As stated by the Chair earlier 
today, a proposal designating an appropriation as ``emergency 
spending'' within the meaning of the budget enforcement laws, 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', insert at the end the 
     following:
       In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $35,200,000 for health 
     care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were 
     excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946 and to 
     increase service-connected disability compensation from the 
     peso rate to the full dollar amount for Filipino World War II 
     veterans living in the United States: Provided, That the 
     Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: 
     Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to 
     the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that 
     is included in an official budget request transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress and that is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their patience in 
dealing with these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, once again we have a situation which is an emergency 
dealing with veterans of World War II who are in their late seventies 
and early eighties and do not have long to live if we are going to 
recognize their service in World War II.
  I would preempt the advice from my distinguished friend from New York 
who said this should be authorized by our committee. Again, the 
chairman of the committee would not allow this particular amendment to 
come before our committee, so the process breaks down in a circular 
sort of argument. When you advise me to get authorization, the 
authorizing committee says we will not take it up, so we have to come 
here to the floor.
  We have a situation, Mr. Chairman, where there are approximately 
75,000 living veterans of World War II, who happen to be two-thirds of 
them Filipino in nationality, one-third Filipino in ethnic origin but 
U.S. citizens. These veterans of World War II fought as brave soldiers 
and helped us win the war in the Pacific. After being drafted by 
President Roosevelt, they fought side by side with us in the battles of 
Corregidor and Bataan, and many marched to their death in the famous 
Bataan death march.
  We rewarded this service to the United States as a Congress in 1946 
by taking away all of the veterans benefits that had been promised and 
due them. For 52 years now, 53 years, this

[[Page H7925]]

really dishonorable and immoral action by an earlier Congress has 
clouded our relationships with the Philippines and has made sure that 
we have a body of people who are rightfully claiming that their 
grievance be redressed. My amendment would go partway toward restoring 
benefits to these heroic veterans of World War II.
  Whereas veterans are entitled to, under conditions that are given by 
law, certain pensions and certain medical care, this amendment gives 
medical care to those Filipino soldiers who fought alongside Americans. 
It would make available monies for care in this country and a small 
portion for our VA clinic in Manila, which serves U.S. citizens there.
  What we are saying in this amendment is that the honor and bravery of 
veterans of World War II be recognized finally by the Congress, 53 
years after they were taken away.
  I would ask again this body to say let us recognize the bravery of 
our allies in World War II, our Filipinos who we drafted, and provide 
with them the eligibility for benefits, healthcare benefits, that are 
given to U.S. soldiers of the same war.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to get something off my chest. I just want 
to take a few minutes to air my opinion about our VA medical system.
  My older brother died in a veterans hospital 100 miles from his home. 
When a veteran is diagnosed with a terminal condition and is near 
death, why can that veteran not be allowed to spend his remaining days 
in a local hospital near his family and friends who will come and visit 
him?
  I would also like to criticize the treatment many of our veterans 
receive in VA hospitals and the expenditure of tax dollars on new VA 
construction, when many existing VA hospitals are underutilized with 
many beds empty.
  In Catawba County, North Carolina, when I was a county commissioner, 
we built a state-of-the-art 250-bed hospital for less than $8 million, 
complete with an oncology unit and outpatient unit. Now the VA is 
constructing an outpatient clinic in the mountains of North Carolina 
for an estimated $25 million. It is an expansion to an existing 300-bed 
VA hospital that is less than 50 percent occupied. Why should those tax 
dollars not be used to better utilize the existing underused space and 
transfer the remaining funds to provide the needed doctors, nurses, and 
medicine? Does anyone examine how VA capital expenditures are being 
made and whether they are needed or not?


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Just to explain, Mr. Chairman, I make the 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. As stated by the Chair earlier today, a 
proposal designating an appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within 
the meaning of the budget enforcement laws, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, in conformance with Public Law 105-33 
     establishing the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
     Collections Fund, such sums as may be deposited to such Fund 
     pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729A may be transferred to this 
     account, to remain available until expended for the purposes 
     of this account.


                    Medical and Prosthetic Research

       For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical 
     and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001, $326,000,000, plus reimbursements.


      Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses in the administration of the 
     medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction, 
     supply, and research activities, as authorized by law; 
     administrative expenses in support of capital policy 
     activities, $61,200,000 plus reimbursements, to remain 
     available until September 31, 2001: Provided, That project 
     technical and consulting services offered by the Facilities 
     Management Service Delivery Office, including technical 
     consulting services, project management, real property 
     administration (including leases, site acquisition and 
     disposal activities directly supporting projects), shall be 
     provided to Department of Veterans Affairs components only on 
     a reimbursable basis, and such amounts will remain available 
     until September 30, 2000.


                   General Post Fund, National Homes

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $7,000, as authorized by 
     Public Law 102-54, section 8, which shall be transferred from 
     the ``General post fund'': Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $70,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $54,000, which shall be transferred 
     from the ``General post fund'', as authorized by Public Law 
     102-54, section 8.

                      Departmental Administration


                       General Operating Expenses

       For necessary operating expenses of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including 
     uniforms or allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General 
     Services Administration for security guard services, and the 
     Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail, 
     $886,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That funds under this heading shall be available to 
     administer the Service Members Occupational Conversion and 
     Training Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental 
     Administration--general operating expenses'', insert at the 
     end the following:
       In addition, for ``General Operating Expenses'', $6,250,000 
     to provide an additional 250 employees to reduce backlog and 
     waiting time for adjudication of claims: Provided, That the 
     Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: 
     Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to 
     the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that 
     is included in an official budget request transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress and that is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, again, this is one of a series of 
amendments that shows specifically where we are underfunding the VA 
budget for the fiscal year 2000. I think any of us who have talked to 
veterans during the recent recess period, town hall meetings and tours 
of VA facilities, have constantly heard the complaint that our veterans 
are prevented from knowing about the adjudication of their claims for 
month after month after month after month after month. Six, 8, 12 
months go by, maybe even 1 or 2 years, and if a process has to be 
appealed, it can go even longer.
  The independent budget of the veterans organizations of this country 
proposed that an additional 250 positions dedicated to reduce the 
backlog and waiting time for the adjudication of these claims was 
absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an emergency situation amongst our veterans. 
These are the folks who fought for us, who have given us our freedom, 
given us our liberty, and we make them wait 1 year, 2 years, even 
longer, to find out whether their claims for disability or other such 
legal situations will be in fact granted to them. I think this is an 
emergency situation which would allow us to put in the $6.25 million 
that we need for this situation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, we have within this bill added funds to hire employees 
to take care of this backlog. We did it last

[[Page H7926]]

year, we are doing it this year, and I would submit to my colleague 
that if the Secretary of the Veterans Administration wants to do this, 
they can do this. To my knowledge, there is no specific authorization 
that prevents the Veterans Administration from hiring additional people 
with existing funds and from moving them around within the department, 
reassigning them to different tasks.
  This is purely within their discretion. You do not need an act of 
Congress to do that. What you need is a secretary who sees things the 
same way that this Member does, eyeball to eyeball, and let him make 
that decision. But this is not an action that should be undertaken by 
the Committee on Appropriations. This is an action that should be taken 
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, speaking to the point of order, I 
understand the arguments of the gentleman. The department is authorized 
to move people around. It is authorized to put people in different 
positions. But the fact of the matter is, there are not sufficient 
funds that would allow them to put money into one area without taking 
it from another area. If you drop the backlog of one, you hurt 
healthcare somewhere else, so we are robbing Peter to pay Paul in this 
issue.
  We need more money. I know the gentleman agrees with me that we need 
more money. If only we could get through these technicalities, we could 
provide the money. Our veterans do not understand with a $1 trillion 
surplus why we do not have $6 million to put in to improve the backlog.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, we have added within this 
budget, we have plussed up an additional $30 million for general 
operating expenses. Clearly what the gentleman is requesting is only 
one-fifth of that amount. So those funds are available at the 
Secretary's discretion to hire these people.
  Let us not forget that we have added an additional $1.7 billion to 
this part of the budget, the largest increase ever. I hope that they 
can spend it all next year, but I have my doubts that they can spend 
all this money next year.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, who knows 
full well that the needs of the VA are far in excess of the money we 
granted to them, they have had to prepare for layoffs; have had to 
prepare possibly for closure of hospitals. There is not sufficient 
money within the budget to treat all of the different areas that we 
want to do. You can play off any one I bring up and say, Oh, we have 
the money to do that, but you do not have enough money do all the 
things that veterans need in this budget.
  I would just say again to the Chair, who, again, maybe rightfully 
says this is the biggest increase in history, it presupposes the 
biggest decrease in history over the next 10 years and is based on, 
under the Congress, of which his party is a majority, the biggest 
decrease over the last 8 years or so in real spending in the VA.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair is considering debate 
on the point of order at this moment. Does the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh) wish to be heard on the point of order and insist on his 
point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. As stated by the Chair earlier today, a 
proposal designating an appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within 
the meaning of the budget-enforcement laws constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                    national cemetery administration

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     the National Cemetery Administration, not otherwise provided 
     for, including uniforms or allowances therefor; cemeterial 
     expenses as authorized by law; purchase of two passenger 
     motor vehicles for use in cemeterial operations; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $97,000.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental 
     Administration--national cemetery administration'', insert at 
     the end the following:

       In addition, for ``National Cemetery Administration'', 
     $9,500,000 to reduce the repair backlog at national veterans 
     cemeteries: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the 
     entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such 
     amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific 
     dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an 
     official budget request transmitted by the President to the 
     Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).
  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
reserves a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is one of a series of 
amendments to show how we are underfunding our veterans in this Nation. 
This one specifically asks for $9.5 million to reduce the repair 
backlog at veterans national cemeteries.
  I know the chairman will say that the Department is authorized to do 
that, that we have plussed up the money, that we have put in the 
biggest money in the history of our Congress. The fact remains, Mr. 
Chairman, that while that could be said about any one item that I bring 
up today, the sum total of all the items that are in this budget that 
was prepared by our veterans organization, the independent budget, we 
simply cannot fund all of those with the present funding. We need 
another $1.5 billion or so to do that.
  While any individual item I may bring up can be handled within the 
appropriation, all of the needs our veterans have cannot be.
  Over the years the national cemetery system has struggled to maintain 
the appearance of our 115 national cemeteries, but budget shortfalls in 
the past have forced the system to address only the highest priority 
projects. As a result, preventative maintenance and infrastructure 
repairs have been neglected. Broken sprinkler systems, for example, 
which result in parched and dead grass and sunken graves which have not 
been reinforced contribute to an appearance of neglect in many 
cemeteries. This is not a way to treat the memory of our veterans. Some 
cemeteries have not had the funds to repair badly cracked walkways, and 
they are actually hazardous to the many older people visiting the grave 
of a loved one. Backhoes and other important equipment stand idle 
because funding is not available for repairs.
  Families must postpone funerals, they must postpone funerals, Mr. 
Chairman, because the equipment required cannot even be used. National 
cemeteries are hallowed ground. They must be properly maintained if 
they are to look like the national shrines that all Americans consider 
they should be.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to plus up funds specifically to 
maintain our cemeteries. I know this amendment will be challenged on a 
point of order and will be sustained. I would hope that the veterans of 
this country would understand that on technicalities this Congress is 
being prevented from funding urgent needs for our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it a bit ironic. I have been trying to get to 
the floor today to speak to a number of issues, a number of concerns 
that deal with veterans. I want to first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank 
the gentleman from California for coming out to my district last week 
to attend a veterans town hall meeting.
  At this town hall meeting we discussed a number of issues, a number 
of concerns that were raised that were raised by our veteran 
population. There are a number of things that we deal with in this 
House that are vitally important. I cannot think of a single

[[Page H7927]]

thing that is more important than the issue of benefits that were 
promised to our veterans and benefits on which we have not kept our 
word.
  That message came across loud and clear last week. That message is 
coming across loud and clear this afternoon in this House. There is a 
tremendous, deep sense of frustration by our veteran community that 
they have been betrayed by their government.
  This issue here, whether we are talking about the amount of funding 
proposed, the amount of funding that was approved, the amount of 
funding that theoretically is or is not, this in the eyes and minds of 
our veterans is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because they have a deep 
sense of frustration when they go to the VA hospital, to the VA clinic, 
to the military hospital. They are asked to wait 4 to 6 months for an 
appointment.
  It is irrelevant because this afternoon, as I was sitting in a 
hearing dealing with diabetes, diabetes that affects our veteran 
population as well as the rest of the population in this country, 
veterans are frustrated because they cannot get the kind of medical 
attention they need and that they must have.
  It seems to me that as we talk and talk about issues dealing with the 
Veterans Administration about who proposes a budget here, who counters 
with an equal amount of money there, the bottom line keeps coming back, 
we are not doing the job for veteran communities. We must do better. We 
have to do better. Our veterans deserve better.
  Let me tell the Members, the veterans understand, by virtue of the 
frustration that they expressed last week in a town hall meeting in El 
Paso, they understand that we are not doing the job for them, that we 
are not coming through on the promises that were made.
  The last thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, is that 
as we deal with the Veterans Administration budget, I hope that we have 
a sense of obligation to our veterans community. I hope that we can 
stand alongside our veterans, and I hope that finally we realize that 
we owe them, in a time of great prosperity in this country, we owe them 
that funding that the veterans service organizations have identified 
and they have proposed.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to just thank the gentleman for his 
comments, but also to thank the gentleman for holding a series of 
meetings across his district in El Paso. I was able to attend a town 
hall meeting with him. Representatives of the 60,000 veterans that he 
has in his district were there.
  I would just say to the chairman, and I am sure he is aware of this, 
the veterans that I represent in San Diego, the veterans that the 
gentleman represents in El Paso, and I am sure that the gentleman 
represents in Syracuse, all of them are frustrated. They do not 
understand how we can have this surplus and talk about these tax cuts, 
yet they walk into the VA and they are told that this specialist does 
not exist, or they have to wait 8 months for that appointment, or they 
cannot get honors at this funeral, or their family member has to be 
released even though they have Alzheimer's, and on and on and on.
  I would just say that this frustration is going to break out and come 
back at all of us unless we can find a way to adequately fund these 
programs.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let me just in closing, Mr. Chairman, say that I have a deep sense of 
frustration when in our own committee we are unable to bring forth and 
even get a vote on the budget that was proposed by the veterans service 
organizations. Frustration is going round and round, but the buck stops 
here. The buck stops here in the people's House.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on the point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law, and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill.
  If I may go on and explain, again, this is another legislative rider 
that, unless specifically denied during existing law and authorization, 
the Secretary can implement these expenditures.
  We have increased in this bill the Veterans Cemetery Administration 
by $5 billion, equal to the President's request. I would remind my 
colleagues again that the President requested a freeze in veterans' 
medical health care. He requested a freeze. In other words, he saw no 
reason to increase the budget for veterans' medical health.
  Everyone we have heard on the floor today has said that we need more 
money for veterans' medical coverage. Everyone agrees, except for the 
President. The President does not think the veterans should get those 
additional funds, although recently, approximately a month ago, we did 
receive a letter from the White House suggesting that yes, now they, 
too, agree that Congress was right by increasing the funding, the 
appropriation for veterans' health. We have put an additional $1.7 
billion into this bill to provide for those needs.
  Mr. Chairman, in the discussion, as I have mentioned and as my 
colleague, the gentleman from California, has also mentioned, the 
largest increase ever in veterans' medical care has been put in, but it 
is not on the heels of, as my colleague suggested, the largest decrease 
in the history of veterans' medical care.
  In fact, there has been no decrease. I have the budget figures before 
me. In 1996, which was the first budget that my party as the majority 
party was responsible for, was $15.7 billion for the Veterans Health 
Administration. In fiscal year 1997, it was $16.3. In fiscal year 1998, 
it was $17 billion. In fiscal year 1999, it was $17.3 billion. We are 
proposing for fiscal year 2000 a $19 billion budget.
  Those are consistent increases, so there has been no dramatic cut in 
veterans' health care. Has it gone up rapidly enough? No, it has not. 
But we are trying to resolve that situation this year by providing the 
largest increase in the history of veterans' health. So the facts belie 
the argument. The facts are that this is a substantial increase, and 
this is the authorized level from the Veterans Affairs committee. It is 
the authorized level under the budget document.
  So I insist on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, and await the 
Chair's ruling.
  Mr. FILNER. I would speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
may speak to the point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would speak to the point of order as the 
gentleman from New York spoke to the point of order. The real needs, 
the real dollars of the VA have decreased over the last 5 years because 
of the aging population and because of the increase of needs of our 
population.
  I will repeat to the gentleman that the $1.7 billion plus-up 
presupposes the biggest decrease in history over the next 10 years, as 
there will be declines from that $19 billion over the next 10 years in 
the budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. As stated by the Chair earlier today, a 
proposal designating an appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within 
the meaning of budget-enforcement laws constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $38,500,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental 
     Administration--office of inspector general'', insert at the 
     end the following:

       In addition, for ``Office of Inspector General'', $838,430 
     to provide an additional 10 employees for the Office of 
     Inspector General Hotline: Provided, That the Congress hereby 
     designates the entire such amount as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That 
     such amount shall be available only to the extent of a 
     specific dollar amount for such purpose that is included in 
     an official budget request transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress and that is

[[Page H7928]]

     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to such 
     section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
reserves a point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), for allowing me to make the points that this process allows 
us to do. I sincerely believe that all of us want to do better by our 
veterans, that we want to see to it that our commitment is kept. I know 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) believes that personally, and 
would like to see that happen institutionally.
  We are governed, unfortunately, by certain agreements in the past. I 
believe those commitments were made in error and that we should in 
effect look at the reality at the present time.
  Again, this is just one last example of where we might improve our 
services, less than $1 million to the office of Inspector General to 
provide for the hotline that they have. Thousands of veterans, tens of 
thousands of veterans, use this hotline. It is vastly understaffed. 
Most of the comments received and the situations described have to be 
referred rather than followed up by the Office of Inspector General.
  I would hope that this Congress could fund additional monies to make 
sure that the frustration of our veterans that we have heard from both 
sides of the aisle be met, and that we fund this item.
  Once again, I do thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
courtesies and indulgence. This will be the last amendment, up until 
the point provided for by the unanimous consent agreement that the 
gentleman will have to rise and make the point of order on, Mr. 
Chairman.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill.
  On this specific amendment, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is asking 
that the Committee on Appropriations and the Congress of the United 
States direct the Secretary to spend $838,000 in a specific way.

                              {time}  1615

  This is a $44 billion bill. Now my colleagues can imagine if we 
directed the Secretary to spend every parcel of $500 to $500,000 how 
long this process might take. The fact is, hopefully, ideally, the 
Secretary has a better idea on how to spend that than Congress does.
  So this is another legislative rider. And I would suggest that this 
is micromanaging the Veterans Affairs Department. We have given them an 
additional $1.7 billion this year for health care. It is the largest 
increase in history for the Veterans Administration, I remind my 
colleagues once again.
  I also remind my colleagues that we have letters of support from the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars who support this level of funding, as we do 
from the American Legion who signed on to this level of funding who 
said it was more than adequate, and that it will provide the medical 
care that the veterans of our country need and are owed.
  So for that reason, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. As stated by the Chair earlier today, a 
proposal designating an appropriation as emergency spending within the 
meaning of budget-enforcement laws constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      construction, major projects

       For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes 
     set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106, 
     8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code, 
     including planning, architectural and engineering services, 
     maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated 
     with equipment guarantees provided under the project, 
     services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm 
     drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition, 
     where the estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more 
     or where funds for a project were made available in a 
     previous major project appropriation, $34,700,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That except for advance 
     planning of projects including market-based assessments of 
     health care needs which may or may not lead to capital 
     investments funded through the advance planning fund and the 
     design of projects funded through the design fund, none of 
     these funds shall be used for any project which has not been 
     considered and approved by the Congress in the budgetary 
     process: Provided further, That funds provided in this 
     appropriation for fiscal year 2000, for each approved project 
     shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a construction 
     documents contract by September 30, 2000; and (2) by the 
     awarding of a construction contract by September 30, 2001: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall promptly report in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations any approved 
     major construction project in which obligations are not 
     incurred within the time limitations established above: 
     Provided further, That no funds from any other account except 
     the ``Parking revolving fund'', may be obligated for 
     constructing, altering, extending, or improving a project 
     which was approved in the budget process and funded in this 
     account until one year after substantial completion and 
     beneficial occupancy by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
     the project or any part thereof with respect to that part 
     only.


                      Construction, Minor Projects

       For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of 
     the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning, 
     architectural and engineering services, maintenance or 
     guarantee period services costs associated with equipment 
     guarantees provided under the project, services of claims 
     analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system 
     construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the 
     purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 
     8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States 
     Code, where the estimated cost of a project is less than 
     $4,000,000, $102,300,000, to remain available until expended, 
     along with unobligated balances of previous ``Construction, 
     minor projects'' appropriations which are hereby made 
     available for any project where the estimated cost is less 
     than $4,000,000: Provided, That funds in this account shall 
     be available for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical 
     facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the 
     Department which are necessary because of loss or damage 
     caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2) 
     temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize 
     further loss by such causes.


                         Parking Revolving Fund

       For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     8109, income from fees collected, to remain available until 
     expended, which shall be available for all authorized 
     expenses except operations and maintenance costs, which will 
     be funded from ``Medical care''.


       Grants for Construction of State Extended Care Facilities

       For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State 
     nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel, 
     modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and 
     domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to 
     veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $80,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


        Grants for the Construction of State Veterans Cemeteries

       For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or 
     improving State veteran cemeteries as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     2408, $11,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Administrative Provisions


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2000 for 
     ``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and 
     ``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to 
     any other of the mentioned appropriations.
       Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2000 for salaries and 
     expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for 
     ``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor 
     projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be 
     available for the purchase of any site for or toward the 
     construction of any new hospital or home.
       Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or 
     examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled 
     under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and 
     persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or 
     42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to 
     the ``Medical care'' account at such rates as may be fixed by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2000 for ``Compensation and 
     pensions'',

[[Page H7929]]

     ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans insurance and 
     indemnities'' shall be available for payment of prior year 
     accrued obligations required to be recorded by law against 
     the corresponding prior year accounts within the last quarter 
     of fiscal year 1999.
       Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding 
     prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of 
     the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86, 
     except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts 
     they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
       Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during fiscal year 2000, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38 
     U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance 
     Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating 
     expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the 
     insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided, 
     That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus 
     earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year 
     2000, that are available for dividends in that program after 
     claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves 
     have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of 
     administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of 
     surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement 
     shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost 
     of administration for fiscal year 2000, which is properly 
     allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to 
     the provision of any total disability income insurance 
     included in such insurance program.
       Sec. 108. Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter, 
     funds available in any Department of Veterans Affairs 
     appropriation or fund for salaries and expenses shall also be 
     available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management 
     and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint 
     Adjudication for all services provided by such office at 
     rates which will recover actual costs. Payments may be made 
     in advance for services to be furnished based on estimated 
     costs. Amounts received shall be credited to the ``General 
     operating expenses'' account for use by the office that 
     provided the service: Provided, That the amounts listed in 
     the House Report accompanying this Act for each office and 
     administration reimbursing the Office of Resolution 
     Management and the Office of Employment Discrimination 
     Complaint Adjudication for service rendered shall not be 
     exceeded.
       Sec. 109. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out a 
     major medical facility project to renovate and construct 
     facilities at the Olin E. Teague Department of Veterans 
     Affairs Medical Center, Temple, Texas, for a joint venture 
     Cardiovascular Institute, in an amount not to exceed 
     $11,500,000. In order to carry out that project, the amount 
     of $11,500,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1998 and 
     programmed for the renovation of Building 9 at the Waco, 
     Texas, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center is 
     hereby made available for that project.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                       Public and Indian Housing


                        Housing Certificate Fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For activities and assistance to prevent the involuntary 
     displacement of low-income families, the elderly and the 
     disabled because of the loss of affordable housing stock, 
     expiration of subsidy contracts (other than contracts for 
     which amounts are provided under another heading in this 
     Act), or expiration of use restrictions, or other changes in 
     housing assistance arrangements, and for other purposes, 
     $10,540,135,000 and all amounts that are recaptured in this 
     account, and recaptured under the appropriation for ``Annual 
     contributions for assisted housing'', to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That from the amounts provided, the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall use amounts, 
     as needed, for assistance under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437) in connection with expiring or 
     terminating section 8 subsidy contracts, for amendments to 
     section 8 subsidy contracts, for enhanced vouchers (including 
     amendments and renewals) as described in the Administrative 
     Provisions of this title, for enhanced vouchers (including 
     amendments and renewals) as provided in paragraphs (3) and 
     (4) of section 515(c) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing 
     Reform and Affordability Act of 1997, and for enhanced 
     vouchers (including amendments and renewals) as provided 
     under or pursuant to the ``Preserving Existing Housing 
     Investment'' heading in the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
     and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1997: Provided further, That in the case 
     of enhanced vouchers provided under this heading, if the 
     income of the family receiving assistance declines to a 
     significant extent, the percentage of income paid by the 
     family for rent shall not exceed the greater of 30 percent or 
     the percentage of income paid at the time of mortgage 
     prepayment: Provided further, That amounts available under 
     this heading may be made available for section 8 rental 
     assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1) to 
     relocate residents of properties: (A) that are owned by the 
     Secretary and being disposed of, or (B) that are 
     discontinuing section 8 project-based assistance; (2) for 
     relocation and replacement housing for units that are 
     demolished or disposed of: (A) from the public housing 
     inventory (in addition to amounts that may be available for 
     such purposes under this and other headings), or (B) pursuant 
     to section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 or to 
     other authority for the revitalization of severely distressed 
     public housing, as set forth in the Appropriations Acts for 
     the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies, for the fiscal years 
     1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997, and in the Omnibus Consolidated 
     Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996; (3) for the 
     conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section 
     8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937; (4) for funds to 
     carry out the family unification program; and (5) for the 
     relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to combat 
     crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a request 
     from a law enforcement or prosecuting agency: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount available under this 
     heading, $25,000,000 may be made available to nonelderly 
     disabled families affected by the designation of a public 
     housing development under section 7 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, the establishment of preferences in 
     accordance with section 651 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992, or the restriction of occupancy to 
     elderly families, or the restrictions on occupancy to elderly 
     families in accordance with section 658 of such Act: Provided 
     further, That amounts available under this heading may be 
     made available for administrative fees and other expenses to 
     cover the cost of administering rental assistance programs 
     under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937: 
     Provided further, That the fee otherwise authorized under 
     section 8(q) of such Act shall be determined in accordance 
     with section 8(q), as in effect immediately before enactment 
     of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998: 
     Provided further, That all balances for the section 8 rental 
     assistance, section 8 counseling, new construction sub-
     rehabilitation, relocation/replacement/demolition, section 23 
     conversions, rental and disaster vouchers, loan management 
     set-aside, section 514 technical assistance, and programs 
     previously funded within the ``Annual Contributions'' account 
     shall be transferred to this account, to be available for the 
     purposes for which they were originally appropriated: 
     Provided further, That all balances previously recaptured in 
     the ``Section 8 Reserve Preservation'' account shall be 
     transferred to this account, to be available for the purposes 
     for which they were originally appropriated: Provided 
     further, That the unexpended amounts previously appropriated 
     for special purpose grants within the ``Annual Contributions 
     for Assisted Housing'' account shall be recaptured and 
     transferred to this account, to be available for assistance 
     under the Act for use in connection with expiring or 
     terminating section 8 subsidy contracts: Provided further, 
     That of the amounts previously appropriated for property 
     disposition within the ``Annual Contributions for Assisted 
     Housing'' account, up to $79,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     this account, to be available for assistance under the Act 
     for use in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 
     subsidy contracts: Provided further, That of the unexpended 
     amounts previously appropriated for carrying out the Low-
     Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 
     1990 and the Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation Act of 
     1987, other than amounts made available for rental 
     assistance, within the ``Annual Contributions for Assisted 
     Housing'' and ``Preserving Existing Housing Investments'' 
     accounts, shall be recaptured and transferred to this 
     account, to be available for assistance under the Act for use 
     in connection with expiring or terminating section 8 subsidy 
     contracts.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 17, line 13, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $200,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 9, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $105,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 5, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $305,000,000)''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add $200 million to 
provide section 8 vouchers for 32,000 additional families and would 
further provide an additional $105 million for the Public Housing 
Operating Fund to help our public housing authorities to maintain the 
safe, decent housing that is in such short supply.
  The underlying bill reneges on our national commitment to provide 
decent, affordable housing to those families who cannot afford market 
rents and specifically fails to fulfill the promise that this Congress 
made to poor families in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility 
Act of 1988. In that act, we authorized 100,000 new section 8 vouchers 
for fiscal year 2000. But

[[Page H7930]]

 the bill provides no funding for any of these authorized vouchers.
  In addition, the bill provides no increase above last year's funding 
level, denying the administration's $185 million requested increase for 
public housing authorities to make necessary repairs that are 
desperately needed in public housing in this country. Families in need 
will suffer under this bill for lack of these funds.
  The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Over 5 million 
low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their incomes for rent 
or live in severely substandard housing. The Federal Government does 
not do enough to assist these families whose needs are desperate.
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke eloquently in 1944 of the fact, and I 
quote, ``True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security 
and independence. Necessitous men are not free men.'' FDR was right. 
Every family deserves a decent home, or perhaps we no longer believe 
this to be true.
  President Roosevelt's commitment to provide decent, safe, affordable 
housing to those who could not afford the rents in the private market 
through no fault of their own continued through both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush 
all to some degree continued that commitment.
  Two years ago, the majority in this Congress decided to break that 
commitment. For the first time since the program began, no money at all 
was provided for new section 8 vouchers.
  I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers and 
public housing do not achieve their goals. Over a million families 
receive section 8 vouchers. Section 8 allows families to enter the 
private housing market and choose where they want to live, helping them 
to escape from the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes 
throughout our communities.
  Thanks to section 8, families can afford decent, safe housing, 
nothing extravagant, and frankly sometimes not very nice at all, but 
much better than without the section 8.
  Millions of Americans reside in public housing. Public housing should 
not be synonymous with dilapidated housing. This amendment will allow 
32,000 additional families to afford safe, decent housing through 
additional section 8 vouchers. It is not asking for much. I only ask 
that today we commit to meet less than 1 percent of the need for 
affordable housing in our Nation.
  Second, the $105 million this amendment would provide for housing 
maintenance will not fix all the physical problems in public housing 
units, but it is at least a start. This amendment would fund less than 
a third of the authorized 100,000 new section 8 vouchers, but that, 
too, is a start.
  Mr. Chairman, it is shameful that so many Americans must continue to 
live in dilapidated and unsafe housing while the country is in the 
midst of prolonged economic prosperity.
  The money for this amendment would be found by reducing the Space 
Station allocation. But, nonetheless, the Space Station would still 
receive in this fiscal year over $2 billion. If history is to look back 
on this Congress as a decent Congress, we must provide for adequately 
housing our people.
  Let us continue the legacy of FDR and of this great Nation. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment just shows the difficulty of this bill. 
Certainly the items that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is 
correct that adequate funds are necessary for section 8 housing and 
public housing operating funds. But I would remind him that this bill 
provides almost $1 billion more for section 8 housing vouchers than 
last year. Let me repeat, we have fully funded section 8 housing 
renewals for the year 2000.
  Would he like more? Sure. Would I like more? Sure. But the fact is we 
had to cut NASA by $1 billion to fully fund section 8 vouchers. Mr. 
Nadler proposes a further dramatic reduction in NASA, specifically in 
the Space Station. We have just rejected an amendment that would 
basically eliminate the Space Station program.
  This $300 million deduction will do a great deal of damage to a 
program that is already substantially reduced. NASA has sustained the 
largest cut in this entire bill outside of AmeriCorps and Selective 
Service.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Tough 
choices were made when we put together this bill. But the subcommittee 
and the full committee weighed all of the items within the bill EPA, 
NASA, HUD, VA, National Science Foundation, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency--and we are spread thin. To take $300 million out of 
NASA when it has already been cut by $1 billion is a deep and cruel cut 
that I am not sure that they could handle.
  We have done our level best to provide funds for public housing. We 
have done our level best to fully fund the section 8 program. For that 
reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject the 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
the subcommittee chairman, that he was given an impossible job, and he 
did well at the impossible job. But there is a problem. When one is 
given an impossible job, no matter how well one does, one comes up with 
an impossible product.
  The gentleman from New York is a very diligent and able and 
conscientious Member, but he is not a magician. What we have is a 
budget which substantially underfunds housing needs.
  I want to be clear. We had a press conference before, and someone 
said, ``well, are you not getting into the situation where you are 
defining as cuts a failure to go up by as much.'' No. In this bill, we 
are talking, as people have acknowledged, about real cuts.
  A couple of areas that we are talking about now, we are talking about 
whether or not we are going to meet a need. Absent this amendment, 
which authorizes new vouchers, there will be no addition to the number 
of subsidized housing units available to people in that category. There 
are no new vouchers.
  We know that housing needs will grow. Similarly, we have long 
lamented public housing. Remember, the bad conditions in public housing 
are not on the whole the fault of the people who live there. They are 
the fault of we, the society, that did not build adequately.
  We came up with a formula that is needed to run public housing well, 
and we shortchanged it. This is an amendment about 3, 4, 5 and 6 year 
olds and whether or not their housing will have adequate maintenance, 
adequate operations.
  I have not liked the Space Station. But even if one does, can one 
justify morally spending money so a dozen people live in space, and the 
price of that is hundreds of thousands of people live in squalor? That 
is what my colleagues are talking about. The Space Station for a few 
versus a mean and dangerous and unhealthy existence for thousands and 
thousands of children. It simply is not morally acceptable.
  I said before I am going to engage in one of the favorite practices 
of this body, I am going to quote myself. We had a press conference, 
and I said, ``I am going to acknowledge that I feel overshadowed.'' We 
do not like to admit that. We do not like to be overshadowed, but we do 
not like to admit it.
  I will admit that when I had my heart bypass operation over a month 
ago, I very much appreciate the colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
who were generous and thoughtful, and they paid a lot of attention to 
me. But now I have been left behind. I got a heart bypass operation 
from a couple of doctors. This bill gives a heart bypass operation to 
America. I pale into insignificance. What is 5 of my arteries compared 
to tens of thousands of 5 year-olds who are going to live in squalor? 
What does this mean when we say no new vouchers? We do not care how 
badly one is housed today.
  Let me say to people who talk about in their districts to those in 
need, ``Oh, I am sorry for you, dear. Yeah, I will try to get you some 
housing. Oh, I am sorry for you.'' Well, this is the honesty test. 
Because if this amendment goes down, what my colleagues are saying to 
people is there will be no new housing. There will be no improvement 
from public housing. There will be a deterioration.

[[Page H7931]]

  We have imposed on people in public housing a work requirement. We 
have tried to change the mix of income.

                              {time}  1630

  But how are we going to carry out the policy of changing the mix of 
income if these places are badly run? We have an acknowledgment that 
more money is needed to run public housing than this bill provides, and 
we are sending it to the space station.
  Maybe the amendment should have been different. Maybe the gentleman 
from New York should have sent some public housing tenants into the 
space program. Maybe we ought to say that instead of living in squalor 
in some of these places, we will create a kind of public housing unit 
in the sky. Maybe that is what we should be looking at. HUD housing in 
the sky would probably do better than public housing on the ground. 
Because that is where we are. We could not have pie in the sky. Maybe 
we can get I. M. Pei to be the public architect of public housing and 
we will have Pei in the sky instead of pie in the sky.
  It is distressing. It is sad. And I understand the tough choices the 
gentleman was presented with. It is not his fault. It is the problem 
with this budget, and it is why I think we ought to send the whole 
budget back and redo it so that we do not condemn the poorest of the 
poor to this.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague from Florida 
for yielding to me. The point I wanted to have the opportunity to make 
is if we look at the budget request of the President, there was enough 
funding in the bill on paper to increase these programs. But if we look 
at the bill closely, we can see there is a $4.2 billion advance 
appropriation in there that some would refer to as a gimmick because it 
looks like the President has increased HUD's budget when in reality the 
$4.2 billion is not available to be spent until the year 2001. So if 
those funds are not available in the year 2000, then without that 
gimmick the President would have had to show reductions in those same 
programs. We did it honestly. We presented what we felt was a real 
budget with real money for real people and real programs.
  If we are to compare apples with apples and throw out the $4.2 
billion budget gimmick, we have put more money into housing than the 
President did.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) have an additional minute 
so that I might respond and it would not come out of his time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, because I know how important the space station is to 
him and to his district.
  I would say to my friend from New York if he heard somebody mention 
the President during my speech he must have been listening to the 
radio. I would agree with him. The President's budget is inadequate. I 
hold no grief for the President's budget. I think the President has 
made a grave error. All I am saying is the gentleman has made bad 
worse.
  I do not care whose gimmick was what gimmick. I do not want to go to 
a bunch of 5-year-old children and tell them the reason they are living 
in squalor is not so much the 1997 budget did not give us enough money 
and we gave it to the space station, it is the President's gimmick. I 
do not care about either one of those. I am talking about inadequacy. 
And the failure of the President to adequately do the job is no 
justification for our failure also to adequately do the job.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
strong opposition to the amendment primarily for the source of the 
gentleman's offset. I understand the passions that some people may feel 
on the issue of public housing, though I would just assert at this time 
in the debate that the reasons for poverty extend far beyond a lack of 
sufficient funding from the Federal Government.
  The offset that this gentleman used is coming out of the space 
station program, which I am very familiar with. All the space station 
elements are being checked out at Kennedy Space Center. Most of them 
have been built. The foreign elements are arriving. They are ready to 
go up on the shuttle. And the budget for the space station is extremely 
tight. There is not elasticity that we can just come in and make this 
kind of cut and they will continue to march on. What will happen, if 
this goes through, is we will slow down the progress on this thing and 
we will end up adding to more cost overruns for the space station.
  Let me just finally add that this bill already has almost a billion 
dollar cut in NASA, and about $250 million of it comes out of mission 
support. What is mission support? Well, it funds the salaries of all 
the people that are working to support programs like this, space 
station. So we have very, very serious problems with the bill as it is 
in the NASA account, and to come along at this point and take another 
offset out of space station I have to very, very strongly oppose.
  I think the gentleman from New York has done a very generous job in 
trying to do his best with HUD, and he should be commended for that, 
not criticized for that. If anything, he should be criticized for 
underfunding NASA and not for underfunding HUD.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. No one claims that 
public housing or Section 8 solves poverty. What Section 8 does, which 
is what we are talking about here, is to enable people, working people 
for the most part who are making minimum wage and who cannot afford 
decent housing in the open market, to afford decent housing. And that 
is a very elementary and human thing to do, and it is an obligation of 
ours to do.
  The other part of this amendment is to provide a little more money to 
enable the public housing authorities to stop the existing public 
housing from falling apart for lack of maintenance. And that too is at 
least as important as the space station.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) for his leadership in bringing this very important amendment to 
the floor. I am very disappointed, and I joined my colleagues earlier 
in stating that disappointment, at the funding that is in the VA-HUD 
bill this year, because of the cuts in affordable housing.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York, which funds $305 
million for 50,000 new incremental Section 8 housing vouchers is an 
important one. Affordable housing is scarce and getting scarcer. As one 
who represents a very high-cost area, in terms of housing, this 
amendment is essential. The amendment will provide 50,000 individuals 
and families with affordable, safe and decent housing.
  The maker of the amendment very eloquently laid out the justification 
for the funding in his amendment, and I would like to join him in that. 
A previous supporter of the amendment spoke, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), said he was going to quote himself. And 
since he took that point of personal privilege, I am going to quote my 
mother. When my mother was First Lady of Baltimore in the 1950s, her 
project was affordable housing for working poor families. And she used 
to say then, and I recall it very well, how can we teach children about 
love and respect and dignity if we do not even provide them with a 
decent place to live? It was true then, and it is even truer now in 
this time of unprecedented economic prosperity for our country.
  With the stock market going past 11,000, with unemployment at record 
lows, with inflation practically nonexistent, it has been demonstrated 
that a rising tide does not lift all ships.

[[Page H7932]]

 When we have people who work full time making the minimum wage who 
cannot afford a decent place to live for their families, then it is 
important for us to have adequate funding for the Section 8 voucher.
  Our budget, Mr. Chairman, as we have said over and over again, our 
federal budget should be a statement of our national values, and we 
have to make some important choices as we consider spending. We have to 
be fiscally responsible. We all agree to that. But we also have to get 
back to basics. What is more basic than a decent place to live for 
America's families? Especially those who toil at a wage which I wish 
would be higher, but it is not, and it creates a need for some public 
intervention in the form of the Section 8 voucher.
  So I believe it is a statement of the values of the American people 
to prevent homelessness. I think it is a statement of values of the 
American people that America's children have a decent place to live. I 
think dignity and respect are important values for the American people 
and that funding in our Federal budget should reflect that priority 
that the American people give it. And that dignity is that which comes 
when a family can have a decent place to live; where children at school 
can say I am going home now. And home does not mean a homeless shelter 
or something worse. Home means home, and in many cases homes that would 
be provided by the Section 8 vouchers.
  So I thank and commend personally, politically, civically, 
officially, and in every way the gentleman for his important amendment 
and urge my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no disagreement with the gentleman's 
objective of adding funds for incremental Section 8 housing assistance 
vouchers in fiscal year 2000. Quite the contrary. I support this 
objective and will do all I can to bring it about by the time this bill 
becomes law.
  These vouchers are badly needed. HUD's latest housing needs report 
tells us that there are more than 5 million very low income families 
paying more than half their income for rent or living in seriously 
substandard housing and yet receiving no federal housing assistance. 
Last year's VA-HUD bill provided funds for 50,000 additional housing 
vouchers to help make a small dent in this backlog of needs. I think it 
is unfortunate the bill now before us is unable to provide any funds 
for new vouchers.
  I also support the gentleman's effort to add funds to public housing 
operating subsidies. I think that there is widespread agreement that 
additional funding is needed to allow this housing to be maintained in 
decent conditions. However, I part company with the gentleman and his 
good intentions when he proposes to cut the appropriation for the space 
station.
  We have already had a lengthy debate about the space station in 
connection with the Roemer amendment, and I will not repeat all my 
arguments again now. Let me simply say the station is an important part 
of a program that will offer valuable scientific and technological 
benefits. Perhaps even more to the point, Congress has repeatedly voted 
to proceed with this project; and, if the voice vote we heard today is 
any indication, is still doing so.
  The space station is now coming to fruition, with the first two 
components on orbit in the next awaiting launch. We should stand by our 
earlier decisions and let the program proceed, rather than jeopardizing 
investments already made by the United States and its international 
partners. The $305 million cut proposed by the gentleman certainly 
would hamper progress on the space station. It would disrupt the 
current assembly schedule, raise costs in the long run, of course, and 
delay the point at which the station is permanently occupied and 
scientific experiments begin.
  But more fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, I reject the notion that we 
have to choose between science and housing. I think we can and must do 
an adequate job on both fronts, and on many others as well. The reason 
that housing is underfunded in this bill is not because the NASA budget 
is crowding it out. Rather, this bill cuts the NASA budget by $1 
billion below the prior year's level. The NASA budget. It is cut by $1 
billion in this bill below last year. A cut roughly comparable in 
dollar terms and larger in percentage terms than the cut in the HUD's 
budget, as bad as the cut is in the HUD budget. So we must oppose any 
further cuts to NASA even if done in order to restore some cuts in 
housing, just as I would oppose any further cuts in housing to restore 
cuts in NASA.
  The proper solution here is not cutting one underfunded program to 
take care of another, but seeking to ensure that this bill has enough 
funding available to address needs in all the programs it covers. An 
unrealistic budget resolution that was passed by a majority of this 
House, promoted and pushed by the majority leadership, pits advocates 
for good programs against each other. The budget extremists win when 
their victims start competing against one another. The real solution 
here is to openly acknowledge that we need to raise these budget caps, 
as we have acknowledged de facto by robbing other subcommittees to pump 
up the funding in the ones that are being brought to the floor so that 
the subcommittee, particularly Labor-HHS that is left behind, is 
woefully underfunded.

                              {time}  1645

  That is an implicit, de facto acknowledgment that we have raised the 
caps. The way to solve this problem is to acknowledge it publicly and 
get about doing it and getting adequate funding in these programs and 
not to proceed to assume surpluses that do not exist with large tax 
cuts, as this House passed a month or so ago.
  We cannot pit tax cuts against domestic discretionary programs that 
are woefully underfunded and at the same time allow the budget 
extremists to allow these programs, these domestic discretionary 
programs that so desperately need funding that prove themselves that 
have widespread support, as we hear on the floor, to start trying to 
cannibalize each other. That is a process that I regret.
  Mr. Chairman, I regretfully oppose the amendment but look forward to 
working with the gentleman to try to get additional funding in this 
bill so that we can fund adequately the program that he is fighting for 
so hard and so effectively.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Nadler's 
amendment.
  It's an overused colloquialism, but this amendment is penny-wise and 
pound-foolish. If you don't like the Space Station and want to set our 
human spaceflight program back decades, vote to kill the Space Station. 
the Roemer/Sanford amendment is intellectually honest in making this 
choice. Sadly, the amendment before us now offers a false choice. It 
creates the illusion of savings by reducing a program budget, but the 
amendment will only increase our costs in the future when NASA has to 
work overtime to make up for near-term budget shortfalls.
  Last year, the Committee on Science received testimony from the 
Chairman of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, which NASA 
created at the request of Congress. The Chairman of the Task Force, Jay 
Chabrow, testified that Space Station costs had grown because the 
Administration underfunded the program. The gentleman from New York's 
amendment would worsen that problem by cutting $305 million from the 
space station account. Such a cut promises to increase Station costs in 
the future.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that the sooner we fix a problem the 
cheaper it is to fix. The only way to fix problems now and prevent them 
from growing in the future is to provide NASA with enough resources to 
do the job we're asking it to do. If you support the Space Station, and 
the vote margins of the last few years make it clear you do, then you 
should reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page H7933]]

                      Public Housing Capital Fund

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out 
     capital and management activities for public housing 
     agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437), 
     $2,555,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the total amount, up to $50,000,000 shall be for 
     carrying out activities under section 9(d) of such Act, and 
     for lease adjustments to section 23 projects, including up to 
     $1,000,000 for related travel: Provided further, That all 
     balances for debt service for Public and Indian Housing and 
     Public and Indian Housing Grants previously funded within the 
     ``Annual contributions for assisted housing'' account shall 
     be transferred to this account, to be available for the 
     purposes for which they were originally appropriated.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       Page 21, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $445,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $92,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $112,000,000)''.
       Page 80, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $241,000,000)''.

  Mr. WELDON of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would shift $445 
million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Capital 
Fund Account to NASA which is funded at a woefully inadequate level in 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply result in bringing the budget 
for HUD's Capital Fund Account to a level equal to the budget request 
submitted by the Clinton administration over the past 2 years.
  While the funding level of HUD's Capital Fund in the bill before us 
is equal to the administration's request, it is important to note that 
last year's Congress provided $445 million more than the request of the 
administration for this account.
  My amendment shifts this $445 million to partially restore NASA's 
budget. Specifically, my amendment would shift $92 million to human 
space flight to fully restore this account in the fiscal 1999 level.
  My amendment would also fully restore NASA's Mission Support Account 
to last year's level by increasing the amount in the bill for this 
account by $241 million.
  Finally, my amendment would add $112 million to the Science, 
Aeronautics, and Technology Account and partially restore this to last 
year's level.
  Mr. Chairman, I am committed to fully restoring NASA's budget; and I 
look forward to continuing to work with the chairman of the 
subcommittee in restoring NASA's funding.
  Now, I understand the concern of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee, about my amendment; and, for 
that reason, I understand his point of order and I will withdraw my 
amendment. But I am looking forward to engaging the gentleman from New 
York in a colloquy later and working with him in the process of 
restoring the NASA fund.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been listening very attentively to the debate 
today. I want to congratulate the subcommittee, under the leadership of 
my good friend and colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
for the way that they have been able to balance the priorities within 
tight budget caps. It is not easy. We all know that. But I will tell my 
colleagues this, the Walsh product is something that all of us can be 
proud of.
  We have just spent a couple of hours discussing veterans assistance. 
I am a concerned veteran myself so, obviously, I am very interested in 
this debate. I want to point out that a large portion of the bill's 
funding, $44.1 billion, supports the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
efforts to provide funding for important health, housing, education, 
and compensatory benefits to military veterans and their dependents.
  This is $1.5 billion more than the current fiscal year and $1.6 
billion more than the President's request. I think that is very good, 
and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be 
congratulated.
  I also am particularly pleased that this bill provides almost $106 
million more than the President requested for the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Much of the increase over the request is devoted to 
the State revolving funds, and we all know how important they are to 
all of our governors and all of our communities. They are overseen by 
the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I am 
privileged to chair.
  The EPA itself has estimated that about $200 billion, that is 
``billion'' with a ``b,'' will be needed over the next 20 years to 
ensure that our local sewage systems are doing an adequate job of 
keeping sewage and other pollutants out of our Nation's waters. The 
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies estimates that need at more 
than $300 billion.
  Yet the President's budget actually cut the funding for these 
programs which States and localities depend upon to protect the 
environment and public health.
  Now, I am not suggesting that the President is for pollution and is 
not sympathetic to veterans. That is nonsense. Of course the President 
is concerned about veterans, and of course he is concerned about the 
environment.
  What I am saying and very emphatically and providing evidence to 
prove the case is that the Walsh committee examined the President's 
budget request and in these 2 areas, providing for veterans assistance 
and providing for the Environmental Protection Agency, did a better job 
and, therefore, they are to be commended.
  So I am proud to support this product. I know how tough it is. I know 
that in many areas we want more money and we wish that we can wave the 
magic wand and create those extra dollars instantly. We would do more. 
But I think we are doing a very good job, and I think the leadership of 
the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be commended and 
acknowledged.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this bill provides almost $106 
million more than the President requested for the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). Much of the increase over the request is 
devoted to the State Revolving Funds, which are overseen by the House 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, which I chair.
  The EPA itself has estimated that about $200 billion will be needed 
over the next 20 years to ensure that out local sewage systems are 
doing an adequate job of keeping sewage and other pollutants out of our 
nation's waters, and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies 
(AMSA) estimates the need at more than $300 billion. Yet the 
President's budget actually cut the funding for these programs, which 
states and localities depend upon to protect the environment and public 
health. This bill restores funding for the revolving funds and begins 
to make a downpayment on our future needs.
  I congratulate the Chairman on putting money where it is most needed. 
This bill uses its limited allocation wisely. I urge its support.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents and I have been anxiously awaiting the 
VA-HUD appropriations to be presented to the entire House. We have been 
watching and have received some of the preliminary reports in the 
latest bill with dread.
  Just in my district alone, one of the highest housing cost areas in 
the country, we lose over $12 million and hundreds and hundreds of 
jobs. We

[[Page H7934]]

are appalled with the proposed cuts, all of the proposed cuts.
  However, I want to focus very quickly now on what the bill does to 
our housing programs. As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and 
Community Opportunities of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
Services, I am acutely aware of the enormous housing needs of this 
country and of my constituents and of the efforts made by our economy 
to respond to our national housing crisis.
  Housing costs in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area are particularly 
alarming. Housing costs are reaching astronomical heights and are 
becoming increasingly impossible for moderate wage earners to meet. The 
working poor and disabled are in greater jeopardy than ever.
  In this best of all economic times for some and the worst of times 
for many, why are the Republicans cutting the bare necessities for 
keeping the poorest of our working people working and those who 
absolutely cannot survive without help, why are we cutting their bare 
bones of housing and the economic opportunities to reach some level of 
self-sufficiency?
  Those who wave the flag of family values yet gut the basic safety net 
of families should really be exposed. These cuts do not create family 
stability. They create family dislocation and upheaval. I do not 
understand the level of meanness in this highest legislative body of 
the most powerful nation on Earth. These cuts are hypocritical and go 
against the very core of our creed of liberty and justice for all.
  We kick people off of welfare and tell them to be independent, yet we 
destroy the basic support system that they need for self-sufficiency. 
What do we suppose will be the outcome?
  A New York Times report from this weekend quoted a study. It showed 
and demonstrated that in the last 2 years the poorest 20 percent of 
these families lost an average of $577 a year, with incomes falling 
over $8,000. They had left welfare but had not made up the lost 
benefits with wages.
  The situation was worse for the poorest 10 percent, who lost an 
average of $814 a year. A clear majority of Americans also do not want 
tax cuts if it means ignoring our public school system, if it means 
ignoring reducing crime, protecting Social Security, Medicare, and 
about protecting our environment.
  I ask our colleagues to vote against this VA-HUD appropriations bill 
that provides no new housing support and which seriously underestimates 
the cost of housing renewal efforts in our country. I ask my colleagues 
to vote against this bill, which undercuts by $450 million the 
maintenance of present public housing stock.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill which deletes and 
reduces homeless programs and funds by over $45 million. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against this bill because it cuts the Fair Housing 
program to reduce discrimination by $2.5 million and homeownership 
partner programs by $20 million.
  Racism is alive and well in America. We need to increase, not reduce, 
our efforts to eliminate discrimination from the face of this country.
  I remember the promises of a bipartisan approach earlier this session 
with the election of the new Speaker. But this is not a bipartisan 
bill. This is a bill that is meant to be confrontational and to move us 
to an ever-increasing crisis point.
  These proposed cuts are certain to create more homelessness and more 
hopelessness, which leads to despair. This is wrong. This is immoral in 
a land of plenty. There are too many unacceptable items in this bill, 
and I ask my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the subcommittee chairman, my good 
friend from New York (Mr. Walsh), in a colloquy regarding the NASA 
provisions in the bill before us.
  I acknowledge and respect the fact that my friend from New York was 
given a very difficult budget allocation. Being fiscally responsible, 
by definition, is not an easy proposition. Millions of Americans know 
that they do that every year with their family budget.
  Nonetheless, as we attempt to prioritize each title and agency within 
each bill, we need to take a step back and look at what we have 
wrought. I remain very concerned about the adverse impact this bill 
would have on NASA and its ability to lead the world in space 
exploration and technology development.
  The Human Space Fleet account is funded at $92 million below last 
year's level. Mission Support is at $241,800,000 below last year's 
level. And the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account is 
$678,200,000 below last year's level.
  These are far-reaching reductions that would have significant impact 
on the NASA team and the science it does for a long time to come.
  I am sure the chairman would conclude, as do I, that NASA's work 
should be a priority with this Nation because of the huge benefit and 
payoff we as Americans receive from such an investment. At the core of 
that investment is man's interaction with space, our need for 
revelation and new discovery. Human involvement in space is a mere 40 
years old, not even a generation. We cannot extinguish this noble quest 
in a manner that might be questioned by others after us.
  While the usual debate over NASA funding includes much technical and 
scientific discussion, I must stress that NASA has a value that goes 
beyond the temporal. NASA has a unique ability to inspire our children. 
Every time I talk with a teacher about space, they always stress to me 
how much of a motivator space exploration is to their children. I think 
this is an outstanding tribute of what a value science is to our 
Nation.
  Would the chairman of the subcommittee agree with me that NASA has 
been and will continue to be a significant national priority and that 
NASA will continue to be a priority with him and with this Congress, 
and would he also agree that minimizing NASA's budget reductions as 
much as possible during conference will be a priority with him?
  I would urge and ask the subcommittee chairman to do all that he can 
between now and conference to address this budget shortfall.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me for 
the purpose of this colloquy. I appreciate very much the many 
discussions that we have had regarding NASA over the past several 
months. I understand the serious concerns of the gentleman about the 
level of funding.
  Having visited the constituency of the gentleman in Florida and 
visited the Kennedy Space Center and met with the leadership there, I 
was deeply impressed by the scope and breadth of knowledge that he has 
in the NASA area. So I very much respect his point of view on this.

                              {time}  1700

  I certainly understand the concerns, and I can assure the gentleman 
that I will work with him and other leaders in our Nation's space 
program to see that the NASA budget is further accommodated in 
conference.
  NASA is very important to this Nation, and I appreciate the 
leadership that the gentleman has shown in addressing our Nation's 
space issues. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to continuing to 
work with me between now and the beginning of the fiscal year on 
October 1 to improve the budget picture of NASA.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and I 
look forward to working with him on this matter of critical importance 
to our Nation and my constituency at Kennedy Space Center.
  Mr. WALSH. I also would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
gentleman and his colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), 
for their leadership with the East-Central Florida veterans inpatient 
pilot program. When I visited Brevard County earlier this year, I was 
briefed on the successes of the pilot program and the possibility it 
holds for improving veterans health care in other parts of the country.
  The committee looks forward to the continued success of the program 
and a report from the Veterans Administration about the aspects and 
benefits of

[[Page H7935]]

the East-Central Florida patient pilot program.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his 
support for this pilot program. I have received very positive feedback 
from veterans, my constituents who have been served under this program, 
and I look forward to the continued delivery of services in this way, 
and I thank the subcommittee chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     Public Housing Operating Fund

       For payments to public housing agencies for the operation 
     and management of public housing, as authorized by section 
     9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1437g), $2,818,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


             Drug Elimination Grants for Low-Income Housing

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For grants to public housing agencies and Indian tribes and 
     their tribally designated housing entities for use in 
     eliminating crime in public housing projects authorized by 42 
     U.S.C. 11901-11908, for grants for federally assisted low-
     income housing authorized by 42 U.S.C. 11909, and for drug 
     information clearinghouse services authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     11921-11925, $290,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which up to $4,500,000 shall be for grants, 
     technical assistance, contracts and other assistance, 
     training, and program assessment and execution for or on 
     behalf of public housing agencies, resident organizations, 
     and Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing 
     entities (including up to $150,000 for the cost of necessary 
     travel for participants in such training); $10,000,000 shall 
     be used in connection with efforts to combat violent crime in 
     public and assisted housing under the Operation Safe Home 
     Program administered by the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development; and $10,000,000 
     shall be provided to the Office of Inspector General for 
     Operation Safe Home.


     Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing (Hope VI)

       For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site 
     revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based 
     assistance grants to projects as authorized by section 24 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937, $575,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended of which the Secretary may use up to 
     $10,000,000 for technical assistance and contract expertise, 
     to be provided directly or indirectly by grants, contracts or 
     cooperative agreements, including training and cost of 
     necessary travel for participants in such training, by or to 
     officials and employees of the Department and of public 
     housing agencies and to residents: Provided, That for 
     purposes of environmental review pursuant to the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969, a grant under this heading 
     or under prior appropriations Acts for use for the purposes 
     under this heading shall be treated as assistance under title 
     I of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and shall be 
     subject to the regulations issued by the Secretary to 
     implement section 26 of such Act: Provided further, That none 
     of such funds shall be used directly or indirectly by 
     granting competitive advantage in awards to settle litigation 
     or pay judgments, unless expressly permitted herein.


                  Native American Housing Block Grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as 
     authorized under title I of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) 
     (Public Law 104-330), $620,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $6,000,000 shall be used to support the 
     inspection of Indian housing units, contract expertise, 
     training, and technical assistance in the oversight and 
     management of Indian housing and tenant-based assistance, 
     including up to $100,000 for related travel: Provided, That 
     of the amount provided under this heading, $6,000,000 shall 
     be made available for the cost of guaranteed notes and other 
     obligations, as authorized by title VI of NAHASDA: Provided 
     further, That such costs, including the costs of modifying 
     such notes and other obligations, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize the total principal amount of any notes and other 
     obligations, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $54,600,000: Provided further, That for administrative 
     expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program, up to 
     $200,000 from amounts in the first proviso, which shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Salaries and expenses'', to be used only for the 
     administrative costs of these guarantees.


           Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section 
     184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (106 
     Stat. 3739), $6,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the costs of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $71,956,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     guaranteed loan program, up to $150,000 from amounts in the 
     first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be 
     used only for the administrative costs of these guarantees.

                   Community Planning and Development


              Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

       For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
     AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 12901), $215,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the Secretary may use up to .5 
     percent of the funds under this heading for technical 
     assistance.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 26, line 6, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 82, line 23, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for joining me in 
offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore $10 million to the housing 
opportunities for persons with AIDS, or HOPWA program. This does not 
represent new funding but seeks merely to maintain last year's funding 
level. The HOPWA program, which enjoys wide bipartisan support, is the 
only federal housing program that provides cities and States with the 
resources to address specifically the housing crisis facing people with 
AIDS.
  Currently, HOPWA is helping nearly 75,000 people in over 41,000 
housing units. These people live in over 100 communities across 37 
States, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
  Mr. Chairman, individuals with AIDS are living longer and more 
productive lives. According to a new report, AIDS deaths have fallen 
dramatically in recent years from roughly 50,000 4 years ago to 17,000 
last year. We owe these encouraging statistics to new and effective 
drug therapies. We have made great strides in the treatment but most of 
these therapies require a stable living environment. They usually 
involve a strict regime built around regular meals and a regular 
schedule. Medication must be refrigerated and often must be taken on a 
rigid time stable. HOPWA provides a stable housing situation in which 
individuals can get the treatment they need and can have the regularity 
in their lives and their schedules that they need. To deny this to 
people living with AIDS would be an unacceptable cruelty.
  As the success of HOPWA grows, so too does the need for funding. Nine 
new communities joined HOPWA in 1999. At least five more are expected 
to do so in 2000. Add to these figures the 40,000 new AIDS cases each 
year and available funding will be spread even thinner. As I said, 
funding for this program ought to be increased but at the very least it 
should not be cut below existing levels.
  As for the offset, this amendment would cut $10 million from the $246 
million appropriation for the National Science Foundation's Polar and 
Antarctic Research Fund, a very small reduction. I should note that 
there are 12 other agencies that also support antarctic research so we 
would not be greatly hindering this research.
  With this amendment, we would do minimal damage to long-term research 
goals while significantly improving the lives of individuals with AIDS 
who desperately need our help now. I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) and am happy to be a part of it. This very modest $10 
million increase is vital. It will allow thousands of people living 
with HIV/AIDS to live longer and healthier lives. It is crucial that 
the Federal Government continue to address the AIDS epidemic by 
investing in this program, and I sincerely believe cutting the funds to 
HOPWA would be a mistake.

[[Page H7936]]

  Between one-third and half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are 
currently homeless or in imminent danger of becoming so. Sixty percent 
of all people living with AIDS will face a housing crisis at some point 
in their lives. While there is reason for hope with new AIDS treatment 
and research, the battle against HIV/AIDS is far from over. The World 
Health Organization announced in May that AIDS is now the world's most 
deadly infectious disease.
  The good news is people living with AIDS are living longer and more 
productive lives, but this means care-giving services are needed now 
more than ever. Given the 57,000 new cases of AIDS in the period 
between March of 1997 and March of 1998, the already long waiting lists 
in the new jurisdictions competing for these much needed funds, it's 
essential that we add this $10 million.
  Daily costs for persons with AIDS in acute care facilities are 
$1,085, while the daily cost to HOPWA community housing ranges from 
only $40 to $100. Providing services in acute care facilities equals 
more than 10 times the cost of providing housing and services in 
residential settings. It is a mistake to do that. We should provide 
this $10 million for HOPWA. It's cost-effective and it's compassionate.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for offering this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) for his support. I simply want to add again that the funding in 
the offset is $246 million plus 12 other agencies doing Antarctic 
research. This is taking $10 million from that for keeping the existing 
level of funding for HOPWA in the face of the greatly increased need. 
With more and more communities coming into the program, and seeking 
funds from the Federal Government, I would hope we can have bipartisan 
support, thorough bipartisan support, for voting for the amendment as 
we do for the sponsorship of the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  Obviously this is a well-intended amendment to provide resources to a 
population that is sorely in need of those resources. It is a very 
popular program in the Congress. I think most Members support it. The 
difficulty once again is striking a balance, and what we did when we 
drew up this appropriation bill was we provided the same level of 
funding that we provided in 1999, basically level funding. We did not 
want to cut it, and we did not cut it.
  What happened was in the omnibus bill that concluded after the 
appropriations bill passed the House, the conference put in an 
additional $10 million, which brought it from $215 million up to $225 
million. We appropriated the same level as last year, $215 million and 
the Crowley-Nadler amendment would put that $10 million back in, which 
would make it back even with the omnibus level.
  The difficulty is where do they find the money? And they went all the 
way to Antarctica to find it. It seems like a good place to go to find 
money for Americans who are in need, but it does do harm to our 
scientific work in Antarctica.
  We have reduced funding for the National Science Foundation by over 
$200 million. That is the last thing that I wanted to do in this bill 
but, again, the balance that we had to strike was very, very fragile, 
very, very difficult. We literally are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul 
here.
  What does this do to Antarctica? The National Science Foundation's 
Antarctic program is this Nation's way of exercising a peaceful, 
scientifically productive and critically important year-round 
influential presence on this continent.
  As in every other part of the world, there are political 
considerations. There are territorial claims to this land that if the 
United States does not play its important role as honest broker, we 
could conceivably have some political difficulty there in that remotest 
of all parts of the world.
  We have also made commitments to our foreign partners in continuing 
this research, and the work that is being done there is very important 
to our overall earth science effort. Lord knows we have affected our 
Earth science in the NASA budget also.
  So I would again reluctantly oppose this amendment. I understand the 
goodwill of all involved, but it really does do damage to our 
scientific effort. And by level funding HOPWA from the 1999 level and 
providing level funding in disabled housing, I think we have done the 
best that we can.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but I rise today in support of the 
Nadler-Crowley-Shays amendment to increase funding for the housing 
opportunities for persons with AIDS by $10 million, to restore the 
program to its fiscal year 1999 level.
  While seemingly small, this increase is vital to HOPWA programs and 
will greatly help the individuals and families who suffer from AIDS by 
providing them with desperately needed housing.
  The housing provided by HOPWA allows people to improve the quality of 
their lives and access life-extending care.
  In 1998, the Center for Disease Control reported that 665,000 were 
living with AIDS and the AIDS virus; and CDC estimates that between 
650,000 and 900,000 Americans live with the HIV virus. In New York and 
in my district particularly the AIDS crisis is particularly acute. In 
1998, there were approximately 130,000 reported AIDS cases in the State 
of New York.
  Once diagnosed, individuals with the HIV virus must take on an 
aggressive treatment regime that requires strict timetables and strict 
diets. Over the past 3 years, CDC has reported a steep decline in AIDS. 
A decrease in deaths and the longer life spans of individuals with AIDS 
is a positive step resulting from nonstop research and advances in 
medications. Research and funding needs to be continued to effectively 
combat this deadly disease.
  Now that we have had the breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV and 
delaying the onset of full-blown AIDS, we must concentrate more of our 
efforts on preservation, treatments and assistance programs. With the 
longer life span comes the need for more assistance, both in medical 
care and in housing.
  Lifesaving drugs are costly, forcing many people to decide between 
essential medicines and other necessities, such as food and housing.
  No person should have to choose between extending their life or 
keeping a roof over their head, and the fact is without adequate 
housing and nutrition it is extremely difficult for individuals to 
benefit from these new treatments.
  Sadly, we here in Congress are now considering cutting funds from a 
program that actually saves lives. HOPWA programs provide rental 
assistance, mortgage assistance, utility payment assistance, 
information on low income housing opportunities and technical support 
and assistance with planning and operating community residences. These 
important services assist individuals and families financially, not 
forcing them to choose between housing and medicine.
  Currently, HOPWA benefits 75,000 people and 41,000 housing units. 
HOPWA is the only federal housing program addressing the housing crisis 
facing people with AIDS.
  Another problem is that many people with AIDS can no longer afford 
their homes and must look for new living accommodations. Oftentimes 
they face discrimination because of their illness. This was brought to 
my attention by an organization within my district, Steinway House, who 
run a Scattered Site Housing Program which locates dwellings in Queens 
for homeless persons with AIDS and their families. It is currently the 
largest program of this type in the country.
  Steinway House and other similar programs benefit from HOPWA, and I 
find it unconscionable to decrease their funds.

                              {time}  1715

  Individuals with AIDS are living longer than ever and while we have 
made progress in awareness of how the virus is transmitted, recent 
studies show that rates of infection are decreasing at a slower rate 
than in years past. To remove funds from a program with increasing 
participation is wrong, and to take funds away from patients whose 
lives literally depend on it is irresponsible.

[[Page H7937]]

  To allow for this increase, my colleagues and I have proposed a $10 
million offset from the National Science Foundation's Polar and 
Antarctic Research Program. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am 
not opposed to science research and understand the value it can have on 
our lives and the future of all human kind. However, the Polar and 
Antarctic Research Program is coordinated by the NSF but has 12 other 
federal agencies also contributing funds and participating. In sum, I 
believe that $10 million is a small sum to transfer to prevent 
individuals with AIDS and their families from ending up on the street.
  We ought to be farsighted in looking at problems in our global 
atmosphere and scientific research, but we must not be shortsighted, 
that we harm the citizens of this country in our efforts. I am not 
saying that NSF's programs are not worthwhile, but we need to have 
compassion for those people who struggle to live each day with AIDS. 
They need our assistance, and we cannot leave them out in the cold.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Cutting 
research funding for the National Science Foundation on top of cuts 
already proposed in this appropriation I think is shortsighted no 
matter how noble the cause.
  The amendment would cut $10 million from the NSF, not from the 
Antarctic money in the NSF, but from the general fund of the NSF. It is 
an agency already facing a $25 million budget reduction. To continue 
the cuts further would jeopardize our commitment to scientific 
discovery and innovation, a commitment that has been crucial to 
maintaining and increasing our current prosperity and quality of life. 
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on 
Science, I have been able to learn firsthand of the benefits and the 
commitment to research that this country needs to make. I would like to 
share some examples with my colleagues.
  Working with NSF, a particular grant, researchers at Rice University 
have developed a new process for creating ultra porous ceramic 
materials. These materials could make membranes with pores measuring 1 
to 2 nanometers, one one billionth of a meter, small enough to help 
medical researchers filter viruses or help chemical workers with new 
techniques to clean up hazardous waste. NSF funded researchers at 
Washington University in St. Louis have created nano-sized synthetic 
particles that could some day be the carriers of drugs or genes to help 
fight the battle against many diseases including cancer.
  So again, taking the money from NSF I think is not justified in this 
case. NSF funded-researchers at Yale University are using powerful 
computers to develop drugs that bind more strongly to target proteins 
making them more effective at lower dosages and reducing unwanted side 
effects. These drugs show promise in preventing transplanted organs 
from being rejected, keeping HIV infections in check, even stimulating 
nerve regrowth in spinal cord injuries.
  Researchers at my alma mater, Michigan State University, funded, in 
part, by NSF have identified a gene that helps control a plant's 
tolerance to cold weather. Using this knowledge, farmers, of course, 
can accomplish the growing of crops in many areas that we cannot grow 
crops today. Since the defense against cold is similar to the defense 
against drought, the potential is real in helping to feed a starving 
world in the years ahead.
  These are just a few examples of the types of projects that could be 
jeopardized by these cuts, so I ask the authors of this amendment to 
please consider other areas that they might argue that these funds are 
reasonable to transfer into the projects that they suggest. While I 
sympathize with the plight of those suffering from AIDS and admire my 
colleagues for their efforts to help, I believe this amendment is not 
the right solution. In fact, cutting funding at NSF will in the long 
run only hurt the very people we are trying to help.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler-Shays-Crowley 
amendment, and I commend the gentlemen for their leadership in bringing 
it to the floor in a strong bipartisan way. This is a very important 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, because what this bill does is cut by $10 
million the funds available for the HOPWA program. That means that 
6,500 people who now receive this funding who are housed under the 
HOPWA program will be put out on the street. This is a cut. It is not 
additional money that we would like to see in the bill. That does not 
seem to have a market with the Republican leadership but merely 
attempts to maintain the funding from last year.
  I rise in support of this amendment and commend the makers of it with 
some pride of authorship of the underlying authorization bill, the 
HOPWA bill that was passed in the Congress years ago. The cosponsors 
were the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and Congressman 
Schumer of New York as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi),--me--of San Francisco. All three of us saw the need in our 
communities for this special program. We worked with the religious 
community which was ministering to the needs of the poor, homeless, and 
especially people with AIDS and came up with this legislation, and what 
it does, HOPWA funds assists low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS 
and their families by providing rental assistance, utility payments to 
prevent homelessness, assistance in short-term facilities. These funds 
also help construct, rehabilitate, acquire, and operate housing and 
provide supportive services. Those supportive services are a very 
important part of it. Evidence shows that the capacity of HOPWA 
programs to deliver services is growing and should not be undermined. 
The housing provided by HOPWA dollars provides the quality of lives, 
improves the quality of lives and the access to life-extending care.
  What is important to note about the HOPWA funds, Mr. Chairman, is 
that they are a good investment. Because of the HOPWA program, we save 
$47,000 per year in reducing unnecessary hospitalization and use of 
emergency health care per person, $47,000 per person per year. So in 
cutting this funding we are increasing the cost to the taxpayer.
  Now we all care about, and as an appropriator myself, I know we are 
all responsible for our own bills, but we also have a responsibility to 
the taxpayer in general and in cutting in our own bill it is foolish to 
think that there is any saving to the taxpayer when this would 
increase, per person, $47,000 per year times 6,500 people who would be 
literally put out on the street, and this all takes place within the 
context of a bill, a VA-HUD bill, with despite the excellent efforts of 
the distinguished chairman from New York whom we all respect and the 
distinguished ranking member whom we hold in high esteem, despite their 
best efforts this bill has problems, and they translate into putting 
people on the street.
  I said before that our budget should be a statement of our national 
values. I ask my colleagues is it a statement of their national values 
to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans while putting those 
most vulnerable people with AIDS and HIV out on the street where stress 
contributes to their condition instead of saving money by reducing 
dependency on emergency rooms and hospital care and keeping people at 
home, also including families of people with HIV/AIDS.
  So again I commend the makers of the amendment, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for their leadership and urge 
our colleagues to support this important amendment, and I hope that the 
distinguished leadership of the subcommittee will find a way to have 
this money, at least this $10 million, at the end of the appropriations 
day for us.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not want to use the yielded time to compliment my 
colleague from New York since it was a bit shorter, but I sincerely 
have tremendous respect for what he is trying to do, and I know that he 
has respect for what we are trying to do. This is a modest amendment. 
We are talking about $10 million. We are not talking about $100 
million, we are not talking about a billion.

[[Page H7938]]

  HOPWA is housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, and when we 
provide that opportunity, we are spending $40 to $100 a day. But let us 
take the high end. It's not usually up to $100 a day; it's less than 
that. But if people living with HIV/AIDS are not in the kind of housing 
environment provided by HOPWA, they are receiving acute care at over 
$1,000 a day. So even taking the high end of the HOPWA cost--at $100 a 
day--we are talking of spending a total of $36,000 per year as opposed 
to $365,000 per year in acute care facilities. We really believe this 
is an amendment that has tremendous benefit because it will save a 
great deal of money as well as provide the kind of compassion that all 
of us want to provide.
  I have particular interest in standing up because my predecessor 
Stewart McKinney died of AIDS, and his wife, Lucie McKinney, did not 
walk away. She decided she would devote the rest of her life to helping 
people living with HIV/AIDS have housing opportunities, and she has 
given me endless opportunity to see this challenge through her eyes. 
When her husband died, she went around the country to see how people 
with HIV/AIDS were living, and it was not a pretty sight, and it 
continues to not be a pretty sight. So Lucie McKinney, a real hero of 
mine, who was not a public person has become a public person, and she 
has made a tremendous difference in the lives of so many.
  So I think when we stand up in support of HOPWA, we are standing up 
with the sense that at the least, at the least we should not go back 
from where we were in funding levels. In this budget year, Mr. 
Chairman, we are spending $225 million, and this budget will be $215 
million, so we are asking that this Chamber restore this crucial $10 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, with that I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make two brief points.
  One, we are not talking about level funding. It may be level with the 
House vote last year, but the omnibus bill this House voted for and the 
President signed provided $10 million more than this bill would do this 
year. So we are being asked to decrease funding by $10 million from the 
current level. Cities and States will get less than last year, and that 
makes no provision for the increasing, not level, number of people with 
AIDS who need this help and for the additional communities supplying to 
the program every year.
  The second point is, of course, we must continue our Antarctic 
research, but this bill does not reduce this program. The bill 
increases this program for Antarctic research by $1 million. The 
amendment would reduce the recommended appropriation by $10 million or 
$9 million less than last year, a reduction from last year of 3.6 
percent, and do not forget there are 12 other Federal pots of money for 
antarctic research.
  The choice before the House therefore is this. Should we reduce the 
funding for housing for people with AIDS by $10 million from last year, 
or should we reduce by $9 million from last year, 3.6 percent, one of 
the 13 Federal Antarctic research programs? That is the choice. I hope 
the choice is obvious.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague from Connecticut, 
Mr. Shays, and my colleague from New York, Mr. Crowley, for joining me 
in offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores $10 million to the Housing 
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS, or HOPWA, program. This does not 
represent new funding, but seeks merely to maintain the FY 99 funding 
level.
  The HOPWA program, which enjoys wide bipartisan support, is the only 
federal housing program that provides cities and states with the 
resources to address specifically the housing crisis facing people 
living with AIDS. Among the services that HOPWA delivers are rental 
assistance, mortgage assistance, help with utility payments, 
information on low-income housing opportunities, as well as technical 
support and assistance in acquiring, constructing, rehabilitating, and 
operating community residences.
  It is a locally controlled program that provides maximum flexibility 
to states and communities to design and implement the strategies that 
best respond to local housing needs. Its administrative costs are 
capped by law to ensure that the maximum amount of funding goes 
directly to the people who need it. Currently, HOPWA is helping nearly 
75,000 people in over 41,000 housing units. These people live in over 
100 communities across 37 states, plus the District of Columbia and 
Puerto Rico. This is a well-run, far-reaching, and successful program.
  Mr. Chairman, individuals with AIDS are living longer and more 
productive lives. According to a new report, AIDS deaths have fallen 
dramatically in recent years, from roughly 50,000 in 1995 to 17,000 in 
1998. We owe these encouraging statistics to new and effective drug 
therapies. We have made great strides in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, but 
most of these therapies require a stable living environment. They 
usually involve a strict regimen built around regular meals and a 
regular schedule. Often, medication must be refrigerated and taken on a 
rigid time schedule. HOPWA provides a stable housing situation in which 
individuals can get the treatment they need. To deny this to people 
living with AIDS, would be an unacceptable cruelty.
  Inadequate housing is not only a barrier to treatment, it puts people 
with HIV/AIDS at risk of premature death from exposure to other 
diseases, poor nutrition, and stress. The majority of AIDS patients are 
at or below 20 percent of the median income and at any given time, one-
third to one-half of all Americans with AIDS are either homeless or in 
imminent danger of losing their housing. HOPWA answers this need, 
successfully providing suitable, reasonably priced housing for 
thousands of Americans fighting AIDS.
  As the success of HOPWA grows, so too does the need for funding. Nine 
new communities joined HOPWA in 1999 and at least five more are 
expected to join in the year 2000. Add to these figures the 40,000 new 
AIDS cases report each year and available funding will be spread even 
thinner. As I said, funding for this program ought to be increased, but 
at the very least, it should not be cut below existing levels.
  As for the offset, this amendment would cut $10 million from the $246 
million appropriation for the National Science Foundation's Polar and 
Antarctic Research Fund--a small reduction. I should note that there 
are 12 other agencies that support Antarctic research, so we would not 
be greatly hindering this research. I am a great supporter of 
scientific research, and it is not easy for me to suggest scaling back 
any work in this area. However, under our budget rules, there must be 
an offset, and it comes down to a matter of priorities. With this 
amendment, we would do minimal damage to long-term research goals, 
while significantly improving the lives of individuals who need our 
help now. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Staff tells me that it comes out of the NSF 
research that has already been cut $25 million. It does not come out of 
the Antarctic money.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, but the NSF research at $246 million allocated for 
this, earmarked for this program, so it comes from this earmark and 
from nowhere else, and therefore the figures that I just gave, which is 
that this earmark out of that total appropriation is an earmark of $1 
million greater than last year; what we are proposing here is to reduce 
that by $10 million, a reduction of $9 million from last year, 3.6 
percent of one of the 13 Federal Antarctic programs in order to provide 
level funding from last year for people, for housing for people with 
AIDS so we do not throw people out on the street, and I think the 
choice should be clear, and I thank the gentleman again for yielding.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Nadler-Shays-Crowley 
amendment, but I am going to direct my comments on the housing 
provisions of this bill that I strongly propose. Let me be clear about 
what is at stake and what message is being sent to this Nation's 
working poor.

                              {time}  1730

  What is at stake is dignity and fairness to this Nation's millions of 
Americans who live in public housing. It is outrageous that at a time 
when this economy is posing record gains, we are now experiencing the 
greatest income

[[Page H7939]]

disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans.
  By cutting half a billion dollars in public housing capital that 
should go to repairing our Nation's crumbling public housing stock, the 
Republican majority is telling this Nation's poor that everyone but 
them should benefit from the current economic boon.
  Is it too much to ask that we give our sick and poor a little 
compassion? I guess that the ``compassionate conservatism'' that so 
many Republican presidential candidates talk about has not made it to 
this body, because there is no compassion in forcing 600,000 Americans 
to go without a bed. In New York State alone, that is almost 8,000 
families with children who must sleep in the streets, and then you try 
to lecture us on family values?
  Worst of all, HUD recently reported that there are 5.3 million 
households who are in need of affordable housing. Despite this alarming 
information, this bill fails to fund any Section 8 vouchers for 
families in need.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Nadler amendment, but even if 
we adopt the Nadler amendment, it is still not enough to fix this 
flawed legislation, and I suggest we go back to the drawing board and 
bring forward a proposal that ensures that all Americans benefit from 
this Nation's prosperity.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Nadler-Crowley-Shays amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess this could be called many things, Sophie's 
Choice, a rock and a hard place, and many others.
  First of all, I certainly want to acknowledge the hard work, as I 
have indicated before, of the ranking member and chairman of this 
subcommittee. These are always difficult choices. I stand here in a 
difficult position, some would say. I am a member of the Committee on 
Science and have always supported the National Science Foundation on 
the good work they do. But that is why I come to support this 
particular amendment, because I am making a choice, and I think this 
bill in its response to housing for Americans has made some bad 
choices. One of them has to do with the great need that we have for 
HOPWA funding.
  In particular, I think it is important to note we have made some 
enormous scientific advances as it relates to the treatment of HIV-
AIDS. I am gratified for those constituents that I represent, that they 
now have a better chance of living. As they have a better chance of 
living, Mr. Chairman, difficulties arise. Where do they live? What kind 
of support systems do they have? Can they live a normal life and have a 
place to live and a job and still have the kind of medical care they 
need?
  In most instances, without HOPWA dollars, homes for people living 
with AIDS, that is not the case. First of all, even in spite of 
ourselves, today people living with AIDS and their families are 
discriminated against. People find out that they are living there or 
that there is housing coming in their area or that they might be living 
next door to someone with HIV-AIDS, and, tragically enough, there is a 
rejection syndrome.
  So the HOPWA funds provide in many instances not only rental 
assistance and mortgage assistance, help with utility payments, 
information on low income housing opportunities, but provides technical 
support and assistance in designing, acquiring, constructing, 
rehabilitating, and operating community residences. I know of some in 
my community, and they give a certain peace of mind to those suffering 
from AIDS. HOPWA benefits some 75,000 people in 41,000 housing units in 
100 communities, and this $10 million is a mere figure that would add 
to the peace and comfort of those individuals that are suffering from a 
deadly disease.
  Frankly, I think we have made some bad choices on housing with 
respect to this appropriations bill, because the $1.6 billion in cuts 
we are talking about in housing takes $220 million from the community 
development block grant monies. Those are monies that my City of 
Houston and the other cities have used effectively and efficiently and 
used promisingly. They are flexible dollars. They give cities, mayors 
and county commissioners and others, the independence to do what is 
right for their community.
  In addition, we are cutting $20 million from the home program, 
affordable housing. It was noted a couple of months ago that the City 
of Houston has one of the fewest numbers of units of affordable 
housing. I am delighted that Mayor Lee P. Brown is committed to cutting 
down the numbers of those waiting for affordable housing and increasing 
the percentage of affordable housing in the City of Houston in the 21st 
Century to 50,000 units.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot do it with these kinds of cuts. Right now in 
my own district I have 21,000 people waiting for public housing and 
8,000 people waiting for Section 8 certificates. Now we are looking at 
a housing bill that cuts all of that. What do we say to these hard 
working people who simply want to go to work every day? They pay their 
taxes, and yet we cannot provide them with a decent place to live?
  I think the Nadler-Crowley-Shays amendment adds to the other concern 
we would have, and those are those individuals most often discriminated 
against who live with AIDS. I think it is time for us to make the right 
Sophie's Choice, if you will, and make some of the sacrifices that all 
of us are asked to do; and although we support different projects and 
have different commitments, like I do as a member of the Committee on 
Science, we have to make the hard choices, and I am going to err on the 
side, positively, I know, on those living with AIDS and on those 
needing affordable housing. Let us do something to fix the $1.6 billion 
cut for HUD, but as well I would like to support this amendment and 
provide additional resources for people living with and struggling to 
survive with HIV-AIDS.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank my colleagues from New York 
and Connecticut for proposing this amendment to restore the funding for 
this very important program, the housing opportunities for people with 
AIDS, to its 1999 level of $225 million. I hope that all my colleagues 
will help and support this Nadler-Crowley-Shays amendment, which will 
shift $10 million from the National Science Foundation's $3.7 billion 
to HOPWA, where it is so sorely needed.
  To me it is a matter of people versus science. I do not like it, but 
it is my only choice. HOPWA is a program where every single dollar 
counts. 75,000 people across the Nation currently depend on HOPWA for 
their housing. This program provides essential assistance with rental 
and mortgage payments, utility bills, obtaining information about 
affordable housing opportunities, and also provides technical support 
for the community residences for people with AIDS.
  Any cut in HOPWA funding will kick, literally kick sick people onto 
our streets. We have enough of those people already in our streets. We 
do not need additional ill people.
  Survival with AIDS requires taking expensive medication and following 
a very special diet. When someone is already faced with a daunting 
challenge of coping with AIDS, the last thing they need is to worry 
about their housing. That is one of the stresses they face, and that is 
one of the things we can help with. If we cannot provide people with 
AIDS with stable housing, many of them will surely die prematurely, 
because it is almost impossible to provide AIDS patients with the 
health services they require if they lack a stable place to live.
  Let us not turn our backs on our fellow Americans who are afflicted 
with AIDS. Let us not throw them out on the streets like used rugs. We 
must vote ``yes'' on the Nadler-Crowley-Shays amendment.
  I ask my colleagues, please, please, support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. 
Crowley. This amendment would cut $10 million dollars from the National 
Science Foundation's (NSF) polar research and Antarctic logistics 
programs, which are part of the Research and Related Activities 
account. The Science Committee and this House have affirmed the 
importance of an active U.S.

[[Page H7940]]

presence in Antarctica. Stable funding for these programs is necessary 
because of the long lead time required for polar operations. If this 
amendment passes, funding will have to be shifted from other NSF basic 
research programs to support polar operations already in the pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, we can all sympathize with the plight for those who 
have contracted AIDS, but I do not think that it is in the best 
interests of AIDS patients to cut funding for basic science programs 
that may one day provide a cure for this and other debilitating 
diseases. The types of basic research NSF funds in the biological and 
other sciences is a vitally important part of a balanced federal 
research portfolio.
  The basic research being conducted through NSF adds to our store of 
knowledge in valuable, and often unpredictable, ways. We cannot foresee 
where the next AIDS breakthrough will come, but I think it is safe to 
say that basic research funded by NSF will be shown to have contributed 
greatly in the effort.
  I do not believe it is their intention, but the amendment offered by 
the gentlemen from New York potentially could prolong the time needed 
to develop an effective treatment for this insidious disease, harming 
the people it is intended to help. NSF-funded research is an important 
weapon in the battle against AIDS and other serious diseases. If this 
House really wants to help AIDS patients, it will vote a resounding 
``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Nadler-Crowley 
amendment and oppose any measure that would reduce HOPWA funding from 
last years level. When is this Congress going to come to its senses and 
start thinking about individuals and families living with AIDS?
  Today, due to the success of effective drugs, the number of people 
and families living with AIDS has tremendously increased--so too have 
their needs.
  The good news is that new medications are proving effective to combat 
this deadly virus. On the other hand, the bad news is that people 
living with AIDS are homeless and moving from shelter to shelter.
  To conquer the most tragic epidemic of our generation, we must 
provide the 240,000 people infected by AIDS in our communities with the 
basic necessities, particularly shelter. The reality is, as this 
epidemic grows, so does the need for housing.
  If we neglect the housing needs of those living with AIDS, our 
children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of our folly.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Crowley 
amendment and restore necessary funding to HOPWA. We all know someone 
suffering from this dreadful disease. We must demonstrate basic human 
compassion and provide them with a decent place to live.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   Community Development Block Grants

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For grants to States and units of general local government 
     and for related expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out a community development grants program as 
     authorized by title I of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974, as amended (the ``Act'' herein) (42 
     U.S.C. 5301), $4,500,200,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That $67,000,000 shall be for 
     grants to Indian tribes notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of 
     such Act, $3,000,000 shall be available as a grant to the 
     Housing Assistance Council, $3,000,000 shall be available as 
     a grant to the National American Indian Housing Council, and 
     $30,000,000 shall be for grants pursuant to section 107 of 
     the Act: Provided further, That $15,000,000 shall be for 
     grants pursuant to the Self Help Housing Opportunity program: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed 20 percent of any grant 
     made with funds appropriated herein (other than a grant made 
     available in this paragraph to the Housing Assistance Council 
     or the National American Indian Housing Council, or a grant 
     using funds under section 107(b)(3) of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974, as amended) shall be 
     expended for ``Planning and Management Development'' and 
     ``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by 
     the Department. Provided further, That all balances for the 
     Economic Development Initiative grants program, the John 
     Heinz Neighborhood Development program, grants to Self Help 
     Housing Opportunity program, and the Moving to Work 
     Demonstration program previously funded within the ``Annual 
     contributions for assisted housing'' account shall be 
     transferred to this account, to be available for the purposes 
     for which they were originally appropriated.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $15,000,000 shall be made available for ``Capacity Building 
     for Community Development and Affordable Housing,'' for LISC 
     and the Enterprise Foundation for activities as authorized by 
     section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (Public Law 
     103-120), as in effect immediately before June 12, 1997, with 
     not less than $3,000,000 of the funding to be used in rural 
     areas, including tribal areas, and $3,750,000 for Habitat for 
     Humanity International.
       Of the amount provided under this heading, the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development may use up to $45,000,000 for 
     supportive services for public housing residents, as 
     authorized by section 34 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937, and not less than $10,000,000 for grants for service 
     coordinators and congregate services for the elderly and 
     disabled residents of public and assisted housing.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, $42,500,000 shall 
     be available for YouthBuild program activities authorized by 
     subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, as amended, and such activities shall 
     be an eligible activity with respect to any funds made 
     available under this heading. Of the amount provided under 
     this paragraph, not less than $2,500,000 shall be set aside 
     and made available for a grant to Youthbuild USA for capacity 
     building for community development and affordable housing 
     activities as specified in section 4 of the HUD Demonstration 
     Act of 1993, as amended.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for the Economic Development 
     Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of efforts.
       Of the amount made available under this heading, 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for neighborhood initiatives.
       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $25,000,000, as 
     authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1974: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize total loan principal, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $1,087,000,000, notwithstanding any 
     aggregate limitation on outstanding obligations guaranteed in 
     section 108(k) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That in addition, for 
     administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan 
     program, $1,000,000, which shall be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''.


                       brownfields redevelopment

       For Economic Development Grants, as authorized by section 
     108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 
     as amended, for Brownfields redevelopment projects, 
     $20,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     make these grants available on a competitive basis as 
     specified in section 102 of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.


                  HOME Investment Partnerships Program

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the HOME investment partnerships program, as authorized 
     under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (Public Law 101-625), as amended, $1,580,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That up to 
     $5,000,000 of these funds shall be available for the 
     development and operation of integrated community development 
     management information systems: Provided further, That up to 
     $7,500,000 of these funds shall be available for Housing 
     Counseling under section 106 of the Housing and Urban 
     Development Act of 1968: Provided further, That all Housing 
     Counseling program balances previously appropriated in the 
     ``Housing counseling assistance'' account shall be 
     transferred to this account, to be available for the purposes 
     for which they were originally appropriated.


                       Homeless Assistance Grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the emergency shelter grants program (as authorized 
     under subtitle B of title IV of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Act, as amended); the supportive housing 
     program (as authorized under subtitle C of title IV of such 
     Act); the section 8 moderate rehabilitation single room 
     occupancy program (as authorized under the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937, as amended) to assist homeless 
     individuals pursuant to section 441 of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter plus care 
     program (as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of such 
     Act), $970,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That up to 1 percent of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading may be used for technical assistance and 
     systems support: Provided further, That all balances 
     previously appropriated in the ``Emergency Shelter Grants,'' 
     ``Supportive Housing,'' ``Supplemental Assistance for 
     Facilities to Assist the Homeless,'' ``Shelter Plus Care,'' 
     ``Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy,'' 
     and ``Innovative Homeless Initiatives Demonstration'' 
     accounts shall be

[[Page H7941]]

     transferred to and merged with this account, to be available 
     for any authorized purpose under this heading.

                            Housing Programs


                    Housing for Special Populations

       For assistance for the purchase, construction, acquisition, 
     or development of additional public and subsidized housing 
     units for low income families not otherwise provided for, 
     $854,000,000, to remain available until expended; of which 
     $660,000,000 shall be for capital advances, including 
     amendments to capital advance contracts, for housing for the 
     elderly, as authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959, as amended, and for project rental assistance, and 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, for 
     the elderly under such section 202(c)(2), of the Housing Act 
     of 1959, and for supportive services associated with the 
     housing; and of which $194,000,000 shall be for capital 
     advances, including amendments to capital advance contracts, 
     for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as 
     authorized by section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act, for project rental assistance, for 
     amendments to contracts for project rental assistance, and 
     supportive services associated with the housing for persons 
     with disabilities as authorized by section 811 of such Act: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary may designate up to 25 
     percent of the amounts earmarked under this paragraph for 
     section 811 of such Act for tenant-based assistance, as 
     authorized under that section, including such authority as 
     may be waived under the next proviso, which assistance is 
     five years in duration: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     may waive any provision of section 202 of the Housing Act of 
     1959 and section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
     Affordable Housing Act (including the provisions governing 
     the terms and conditions of project rental assistance and 
     tenant-based assistance) that the Secretary determines is not 
     necessary to achieve the objectives of these programs, or 
     that otherwise impedes the ability to develop, operate or 
     administer projects assisted under these programs, and may 
     make provision for alternative conditions or terms where 
     appropriate.


                         Flexible Subsidy Fund

                          (transfer of funds)

       From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted 
     balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 1999, 
     and any collections made during fiscal year 2000, shall be 
     transferred to the Flexible Subsidy Fund, as authorized by 
     section 236(g) of the National Housing Act, as amended.

                     Federal Housing Administration


             FHA--Mutual Mortgage Insurance Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       During fiscal year 2000, commitments to guarantee loans to 
     carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of 
     $140,000,000,000.
       During fiscal year 2000, obligations to make direct loans 
     to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National 
     Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed $50,000,000: 
     Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales 
     of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and 
     formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed and direct loan program, $328,888,000, of which 
     not to exceed $324,866,000 shall be transferred to the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''; and of which not 
     to exceed $4,022,000 shall be transferred to the 
     appropriation for the ``Office of Inspector General''.


             FHA--General and Special Risk Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections 
     238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3 
     and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee 
     modifications (as that term is defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended) $153,000,000, 
     including not to exceed $153,000,000 from unobligated 
     balances previously appropriated under this heading, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That these funds 
     are available to subsidize total loan principal, any part of 
     which is to be guaranteed, of up to $18,100,000,000.
       Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of 
     the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $50,000,000; of 
     which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be for bridge financing 
     in connection with the sale of multifamily real properties 
     owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under such Act; 
     and of which not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be for loans to 
     nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with the 
     sale of single-family real properties owned by the Secretary 
     and formerly insured under such Act.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $211,455,000 
     (including not to exceed $147,000,000 from unobligated 
     balances previously appropriated under this heading), of 
     which $193,134,000, shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for ``Salaries and expenses'' and of which $18,321,000 shall 
     be transferred to the appropriation for the ``Office of 
     Inspector General''.

                Government National Mortgage Association


Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       During fiscal year 2000, new commitments to issue 
     guarantees to carry out the purposes of section 306 of the 
     National Housing Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall 
     not exceed $200,000,000,000.
       For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the 
     guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $9,383,000, to 
     be derived from the GNMA-guarantees of mortgage-backed 
     securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to 
     exceed $9,383,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation 
     for departmental ``Salaries and expenses''.

                    Policy Development and Research


                        Research and Technology

       For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs 
     of research and studies relating to housing and urban 
     problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title 
     V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as 
     amended (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out 
     the functions of the Secretary under section 1(a)(1)(i) of 
     Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $42,500,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001.

                   Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity


                        Fair Housing Activities

       For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise 
     provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 
     1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1987, as amended, $37,500,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2001, of which $18,750,000 
     shall be to carry out activities pursuant to such section 
     561: Provided, That no funds made available under this 
     heading shall be used to lobby the executive or legislative 
     branches of the Federal Government in connection with a 
     specific contract, grant or loan.

                     Office of Lead Hazard Control


                         Lead Hazard Reduction

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by 
     sections 1011 and 1053 of the Residential Lead-Based Hazard 
     Reduction Act of 1992, $70,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be for CLEARCorps and 
     $7,500,000 shall be for a Healthy Homes Initiative, which 
     shall be a program pursuant to sections 501 and 502 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 that shall include 
     research, studies, testing, and demonstration efforts, 
     including education and outreach concerning lead-based paint 
     poisoning and other housing-related environmental diseases 
     and hazards: Provided, That all balances for the Lead Hazard 
     Reduction Programs previously funded in the ``Annual 
     contributions for assisted housing'' and ``Community 
     development block grants'' accounts shall be transferred to 
     this account, to be available for the purposes for which they 
     were originally appropriated.

                     Management and Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary administrative and non-administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     not otherwise provided for, including not to exceed $7,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $985,576,000, of which $518,000,000 shall be provided from 
     the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration, 
     $9,383,000 shall be provided from funds of the Government 
     National Mortgage Association, $1,000,000 shall be provided 
     from the appropriation for ``Community development block 
     grants'' $150,000 shall be provided by transfer from the 
     ``Title VI Indian Federal Guarantees Program'' account, and 
     $200,000 shall be provided by transfer from the appropriation 
     for ``Indian housing loan guarantee fund program account''. 
     Of the amount provided in this paragraph, $2,000,000 shall be 
     for a Millenial Housing Commission.


                      Office of Inspector General

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $72,343,000, of which $22,343,000 shall be provided 
     from the various funds of the Federal Housing Administration 
     and $10,000,000 shall be provided from the amount earmarked 
     for Operation Safe Home in the appropriation for ``Drug 
     elimination grants for low-income housing'': Provided, That 
     the Inspector General shall have independent authority over 
     all personnel issues within the Office of Inspector General.

             Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprise Financial 
     Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed 
     $1,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $19,493,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     derived from the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Fund: 
     Provided, That not to exceed such amount shall be available 
     from the General Fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary 
     to incur

[[Page H7942]]

     obligations and make expenditures pending the receipt of 
     collections to the Fund: Provided further, That the General 
     Fund amount shall be reduced as collections are received 
     during the fiscal year so as to result in a final 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $0.

                       Administrative Provisions


                      Financing Adjustment Factors

       Sec. 201. Fifty percent of the amounts of budget authority, 
     or in lieu thereof 50 percent of the cash amounts associated 
     with such budget authority, that are recaptured from projects 
     described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney 
     Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
     628, 102 Stat. 3224, 3268) shall be rescinded, or in the case 
     of cash, shall be remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts 
     of budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or 
     remitted to the Treasury shall be used by State housing 
     finance agencies or local governments or local housing 
     agencies with projects approved by the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development for which settlement occurred after 
     January 1, 1992, in accordance with such section. 
     Notwithstanding the previous sentence, the Secretary may 
     award up to 15 percent of the budget authority or cash 
     recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to the Treasury to 
     provide project owners with incentives to refinance their 
     project at a lower interest rate.


                      Fair Housing and Free Speech

       Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this Act 
     may be used during fiscal year 2000 to investigate or 
     prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful 
     activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the 
     filing or maintaining of a nonfrivolous legal action, that is 
     engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or preventing 
     action by a government official or entity, or a court of 
     competent jurisdiction.


                     Enhanced Disposition Authority

       Sec. 203. Section 204 of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, is amended by striking 
     ``fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000''.


           Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Grants

       Sec. 204. Section 207 of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, is amended by striking 
     wherever it occurs ``fiscal year 1999'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``fiscal years 1999 and 2000''.


             FHA Multifamily Mortgage Credit Demonstrations

       Sec. 205. Section 542 of the Housing and Community 
     Development Act of 1992 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(5) by striking ``during fiscal year 
     1999'', and inserting ``in each of fiscal years 1999 and 
     2000'', and
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (c)(4) by striking 
     ``during fiscal year 1999'' and inserting ``in each of fiscal 
     years 1999 and 2000''.


                             reprogramming

       Sec. 206. Of the amounts made available under the 6th 
     undesignated paragraph under the heading ``Community Planning 
     and Development--community development block grants'' in 
     title II of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing 
     and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-276; 112 Stat. 2477) 
     for the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for grants for 
     targeted economic investments, the $1,000,000 to be made 
     available (pursuant to the related provisions of the joint 
     explanatory statement in the conference report to accompany 
     such Act (Report 105-769, 105th Congress, 2d Session)) to the 
     City of Redlands, California, for the redevelopment 
     initiatives near the historic Fox Theater shall, 
     notwithstanding such provisions, be made available to such 
     City for the following purposes:
       (1) $700,000 shall be for renovation of the City of 
     Redlands Fire Station No. 1;
       (2) $200,000 shall be for renovation of the Mission Gables 
     House at the Redlands Bowl historic outdoor amphitheater; and
       (3) $100,000 shall be for the preservation of historic 
     Hillside Cemetery.


income eligibility adjustments for unusually high or low family incomes

       Sec. 207. Section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by inserting before the period 
     the following:
     ``; except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings 
     higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on 
     the basis of the Secretary's findings that such variations 
     are necessary because of unusually high or low family 
     incomes''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting before the period 
     the following:
     ``; except that the Secretary may establish income ceilings 
     higher or lower than 30 percent of the area median income on 
     the basis of the Secretary's findings that such variations 
     are necessary because of unusually high or low family 
     incomes''.


                      millenial housing commission

       Sec. 208. (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a 
     commission to be known as the Millenial Housing Commission 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Commission''.
       (b) Study.--The duty of the Commission shall be to conduct 
     a study that examines, analyzes, and explores--
       (1) the importance of housing, particularly affordable 
     housing which includes housing for the elderly, to the 
     infrastructure of the United States;
       (2) the various possible methods for increasing the role of 
     the private sector in providing affordable housing in the 
     United States, including the effectiveness and efficiency of 
     such methods; and
       (3) whether the existing programs of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development work in conjunction with one 
     another to provide better housing opportunities for families, 
     neighborhoods, and communities, and how such programs can be 
     improved with respect to such purpose.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 22 members, appointed not later than January 1, 
     2000, as follows:
       (A) 2 co-chairpersons appointed by--
       (i) 1 co-chairperson appointed by a committee consisting of 
     the chairmen of the Subcommittees on the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies of the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the chairman 
     of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunities of 
     the House of Representatives and the chairman of the 
     Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Senate; and
       (ii) 1 co-chairperson appointed by a committee consisting 
     of the ranking minority members of the Subcommittees on the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee 
     on Housing and Community Opportunities of the House of 
     Representatives and the ranking minority member of the 
     Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Senate.
       (B) 10 members appointed by the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member of the Committee on Banking and Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives.
       (C) 10 members appointed by the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Qualifications.--Appointees should have proven 
     expertise in directing, assemblying, or applying capital 
     resources from a variety of sources to the successful 
     development of affordable housing or the revitalization of 
     communities, including economic and job development.
       (3) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       (4) Chairpersons.--The members appointed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall serve as co-chairpersons of the 
     Commission.
       (5) Prohibition of pay.--Members of the Commission shall 
     serve without pay.
       (6) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (7) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold 
     hearings.
       (8) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairpersons.
       (d) Director and Staff.--
       (1) Director.--The Commission shall have a Director who 
     shall be appointed by the Chairperson. The Director shall be 
     paid at a rate not to exceed the rate of basic pay payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule.
       (2) Staff.--The Commission may appoint personnel as 
     appropriate. The staff of the Commission shall be appointed 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and shall 
     be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum annual rate of 
     basic pay payable for the General Schedule.
       (4) Staff of federal agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Commission, the head of any Federal department or agency may 
     detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that 
     department or agency to the Commission to assist it in 
     carrying out its duties under this Act.
       (e) Powers.--
       (1) Hearings and sessions.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings, sit and 
     act at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence 
     as the Commission considers appropriate.
       (2) Powers of members and agents.--Any member or agent of 
     the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any 
     action which the Commission is authorized to take by this 
     section.

[[Page H7943]]

       (3) Obtaining official data.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this Act. 
     Upon request of the Chairpersons of the Commission, the head 
     of that department or agency shall furnish that information 
     to the Commission.
       (4) Gifts, bequests, and devises.--The Commission may 
     accept, use, and dispose of gifts, bequests, or devises of 
     services or property, both real and personal, for the purpose 
     of aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts, 
     bequests, or devises of money and proceeds from sales of 
     other property received as gifts, bequests, or devises shall 
     be deposited in the Treasury and shall be available for 
     disbursement upon order of the Commission.
       (5) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (6) Administrative support services.--Upon the request of 
     the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this section.
       (7) Contract Authority.--The Commission may contract with 
     and compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     services, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
     Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
       (f) Report.--The Commission shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations and Banking and Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations 
     and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a final 
     report not later than March 1, 2002. The report shall contain 
     a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the 
     Commission with respect to the study conducted under 
     subsection (b), together with its recommendations for 
     legislation, administrative actions, and any other actions 
     the Commission considers appropriate.
       (g) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on June 
     30, 2002. Section 14(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.; relating to the termination of 
     advisory committees) shall not apply to the Commission.


                        fha technical correction

       Sec. 209. Section 203(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by adding before 
     ``48 percent'' the following: ``the greater of the dollar 
     amount limitation in effect under this section for the area 
     on the date of enactment of the Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 or''.


                   reuse of certain budget authority

       Sec. 210. Section 8(z) of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting after ``on account of'' the following: 
     ``expiration or''; and
       (B) by striking the parenthetical phrase; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (3).


                           enhanced vouchers

       Sec. 211. (a) Enhanced Vouchers Upon Contract Expiration.--
     In the case of contracts for project-based assistance under 
     section 8 that are not renewed, the following provisions 
     shall apply:
       (1) In general.--To the extent that amounts for assistance 
     under this section are provided in advance in appropriations 
     Acts, after the date of the expiration or termination of the 
     contract for project-based assistance for a covered project, 
     the Secretary shall make enhanced voucher assistance under 
     this section available on behalf of each family in an 
     assisted dwelling unit whose rent, as a result of a rent 
     increase occurring after the date of such expiration or 
     termination, exceeds 30 percent of adjusted income.
       (2) Enhanced assistance.--Enhanced voucher assistance under 
     this section shall be voucher assistance under section 8(o) 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937, except that under 
     such enhanced voucher assistance--
       (A) if the assisted family elects to remain in the covered 
     project in which the family was residing on the date of the 
     expiration of such contract and the rent for any year for 
     such unit exceeds the normally applicable payment standard 
     established by the public housing agency pursuant to section 
     8(o), the amount of rental assistance provided on behalf of 
     the family shall be determined using a payment standard that 
     is equal to the rent for the dwelling unit: Provided, That 
     the rent is reasonable in comparison to the rent charged for 
     comparable dwelling units in the private, unassisted local 
     market; and
       (B) if the assisted family elects to move from such covered 
     project, subparagraph (A) shall not apply and the payment 
     standard for the dwelling unit occupied by the family shall 
     be determined in accordance with section 8(o).
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (A) Assisted dwelling unit.--The term ``assisted dwelling 
     unit'' means a dwelling unit that--
       (i) is in a covered project; and
       (ii) is covered by rental assistance provided under the 
     contract for project-based assistance for the covered 
     project.
       (B) Covered project.--The term ``covered project'' means 
     any housing that--
       (i) consists of more than 4 dwelling units;
       (ii) is covered in whole or in part by a contract for 
     project-based assistance under--

       (I) the new construction or substantial rehabilitation 
     program under section 8(b)(2) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937 (as in effect before October 1, 1983);
       (II) the property disposition program under section 8(b) of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937;
       (III) the moderate rehabilitation program under section 
     8(e)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as in 
     effect before October 1, 1991);
       (IV) the loan management assistance program under section 8 
     of the United States Housing Act of 1937;
       (V) section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (as 
     in effect before January 1, 1975);
       (VI) the rent supplement program under section 101 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965; or
       (VII) section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 
     following conversion from assistance under section 101 of the 
     Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;

       (iii) is covered by a contract which under its own terms 
     expires on or after October 1, 2000, but before October 1, 
     2004;
       (iv) is not housing for which residents are eligible for 
     enhanced voucher assistance as provided under the heading 
     ``Preserving Existing Housing Investment'' in the Departments 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 
     104-204; 110 Stat. 2884), pursuant to such provision or any 
     other subsequently enacted provision of law; and
       (v) is not housing for which residents are eligible for 
     enhanced voucher assistance as provided in paragraphs (3) and 
     (4) of section 515(c) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing 
     Reform and Affordability Act of 1997.
       (b) Effect of Rental Increases on Other Enhanced 
     Vouchers.--To the extent that amounts are provided in advance 
     in appropriations Acts for enhanced vouchers (including 
     amendments and renewals) pursuant to the authority under the 
     heading ``Preserving existing housing investment'' in the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1997 (Public Law 104-204; 110 Stat. 2884), each family 
     receiving such enhanced voucher assistance after the date of 
     prepayment or voluntary termination which continues to reside 
     in the housing occupied on the date of prepayment or 
     voluntary termination and the rent of which, absent enhanced 
     voucher assistance, would exceed the greater of 30 percent of 
     adjusted income or the rent paid by the family on such date, 
     may continue to receive such enhanced voucher assistance 
     indefinitely, subject to other requirements of that 
     authority, as amended: Provided, That rent resulting from 
     rent increases occurring later than one year after the date 
     of prepayment or voluntary termination may be used to 
     increase the applicable payment standard: Provided further, 
     That the rent for the dwelling unit is reasonable in 
     comparison to the rent charged for comparable dwelling units 
     in the private, unassisted local market.


                              rescissions

       Sec. 212. Of the balances remaining from funds appropriated 
     to the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Public 
     Law 105-65 and prior appropriations Acts, $74,400,000 is 
     rescinded: Provided, That the amount rescinded shall be 
     comprised of--
       (1) $30,552,000 of the amounts that were appropriated for 
     the modernization of public housing unit; under the heading 
     ``Annual contributions for assisted housing'', including an 
     amount equal to the amount transferred from such account to, 
     and merged with amounts under the heading ``Public housing 
     capital fund'';
       (2) $3,048,000 of the amounts from which no disbursements 
     have been made within five successive fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 1993, that were appropriated under the 
     heading ``Annual contributions for assisted housing'', 
     including an amount equal to the amount transferred from such 
     account to the account under the heading ``Housing 
     certificate fund'';
       (3) $22,975,000 of amounts appropriated for homeownership 
     assistance under section 235(r) of the National Housing Act, 
     including $6,875,000 appropriated in Public Law 103-327 
     (approved September 28, 1994, 104 Stat. 2305) for such 
     purposes;
       (4) $11,400,000 of the amounts appropriated for the 
     Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere programs 
     (HOPE programs), as authorized by the Cranston-Gonzalez 
     National Affordable Housing Act; and
       (5) $6,400,000 of the balances remaining in the account 
     under the heading ``Nonprofit Sponsor Assistance Account''.


                  grant for national cities in schools

       Sec. 213. For a grant to the National Cities in Schools 
     Community Development program under section 930 of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, $5,000,000.


                      moving to work demonstration

       Sec. 214. For the Moving to Work Demonstration program as 
     set forth in Public Law 104-204 (110 Stat. 2888), $5,000,000.


                                repealer

       Sec. 215. Section 218 of Public Law 104-204 is repealed.

[[Page H7944]]

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that title II be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to that portion of 
the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    TITLE III--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  American Battle Monuments Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     American Battle Monuments Commission, including the 
     acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries; 
     purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national 
     cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its 
     territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space 
     in foreign countries; purchase (one for replacement only) and 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and insurance of official 
     motor vehicles in foreign countries, when required by law of 
     such countries, $28,467,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

             Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses in carrying out activities pursuant 
     to section 112(r)(6) of the Clean Air Act, including hire of 
     passenger vehicles, and for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem 
     equivalent to the maximum rate payable for senior level 
     positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376, $9,000,000: Provided, That the 
     Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board shall have not 
     more than three career Senior Executive Service positions.

                       Department of the Treasury

              Community Development Financial Institutions

              community development financial institutions

                          fund program account

       To carry out the Community Development Banking and 
     Financial Institutions Act of 1994 and to establish and carry 
     out a microenterprise technical assistance and capacity 
     building grant program, including services authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the rate for ES-3, $70,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2001, of which up to 
     $7,860,000 may be used for administrative expenses, up to 
     $16,500,000 may be used for the cost of direct loans, and up 
     to $1,000,000 may be used for administrative expenses to 
     carry out the direct loan program: Provided, That the cost of 
     direct loans, including the cost of modifying such loans, 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $53,140,000: Provided 
     further, That not more than $30,000,000 of the funds made 
     available under this heading may be used to carry out section 
     114 of the Community Development Banking and Financial 
     Institutions Act of 1994: Provided further, That costs 
     associated with the training program under section 109 and 
     the technical assistance program under section 108 shall not 
     be considered to be administrative expenses.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable under 5 U.S.C. 5376, purchase of nominal 
     awards to recognize non-Federal officials' contributions to 
     Commission activities, and not to exceed $500 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $47,000,000.

             Corporation for National and Community Service


                National and Community Service Programs

                           Operating Expenses

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading in Public Law 
     105-276, the Corporation for National and Community Service 
     shall use such amounts of such funds as may be necessary to 
     carry out the orderly termination of the programs, 
     activities, and initiatives under the National Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 103-82) and the Corporation: 
     Provided, That such sums shall be utilized to resolve all 
     responsibilities and obligations in connection with said 
     Corporation.

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to offer an amendment and will not take 
the whole 5 minutes, but I just want to express a tremendous 
reservation I have about the lack of funding for the Corporation for 
National and Community Service and particularly the AmeriCorps program.
  The bottom line is this program has done extraordinary things to help 
our country in so many different community services. It provides a 
stipend to countless numbers of young people and older people who 
choose to serve our country in a program which allows the States to 
design two-thirds of the programs; in fact, even more than that. 
Approximately one-third is a nationally-funded program, and two-thirds 
are State-designed.
  Young people and older people provide services in health care, in 
housing, in education, in public safety. They receive a basic minimum 
wage, plus an education stipend of $4,750 for each year served.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a program that Republicans should love and not 
try to eliminate, because it simply encourages people to serve in our 
communities and receive an educational grant for some of that service. 
Mr. Chairman, in many cases it is helping those individuals that have 
the greatest need for this type of financial support.
  I weep mentally that my party has not recognized the value of a 
program of national service in our country. It was something we used to 
advocate before there was a President Clinton and before it became his 
program. It was a program we used to think made sense because it was 
not a hand-out. Young people worked for a minimum wage. They provided 
service to so many different individuals and organizations and then 
receive a stipend to educate themselves and improve their lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray if this bill ultimately gets my support 
before it is then sent to the Senate that in conference the funding for 
the Corporation for National Service will be restored. I am certain I 
will vote against any legislation in final passage that does not 
provide for this very sensible program.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut for yielding to me.
  Apparently the fact that the gentleman is from Connecticut, I am from 
Texas, States that are very far apart, each can stand up and 
acknowledge the good work we have seen from those young people in 
AmeriCorps.
  The pleasure of being home is hearing from our constituents and 
hearing about all the exciting things that are happening. In the course 
of being home in Houston I was able to see some of the kinds of 
projects AmeriCorps is involved in and some of the appreciation and 
compliments coming from our school district, saying, we did not have a 
preschool teacher or aide, but we have one now because the AmeriCorps 
young person is involved.
  With all the shortages in the teaching profession, shortages of 
teachers, AmeriCorps is most helpful in our educational system. Those 
young people are close to our children's age. They are understanding. 
They are committed to their own education. They are good role models.
  So I would hope, too, that whatever happens on this bill, that we see 
the value of AmeriCorps, and we be able to support an increase of 
funding of that particular part of this legislation.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut, my 
good friend, for yielding to me.
  I will be very brief. No one is more aware of the fact that in order 
for this bill to gain the President's signature, the President's 
favorite program within this bill will have to be funded at some level. 
I would be happy to communicate with the gentleman from Connecticut as 
we go down the road on this program that we both see some value to.
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $3,000,000.

                  Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation of the United 
     States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. 7251-

[[Page H7945]]

     7298, $11,450,000, of which $910,000 shall be available for 
     the purpose of providing financial assistance as described, 
     and in accordance with the process and reporting procedures 
     set forth under this heading in Public Law 102-229.

                      Department of Defense--Civil

                       Cemeterial Expenses, Army


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for 
     maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National 
     Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery, 
     including the purchase of two passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only, and not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses, $12,473,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Environmental Protection Agency


                         Science and Technology

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For science and technology, including research and 
     development activities, which shall include research and 
     development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 
     as amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related 
     costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances 
     therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate 
     payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; 
     procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other 
     operating expenses in support of research and development; 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $645,000,000, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2001: Provided, That the obligated balance of sums 
     available in this account shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2008 for liquidating obligations made in fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001: Provided further, That the obligated 
     balance of funds transferred to this account in Public Law 
     105-276 shall remain available through September 30, 2007 for 
     liquidating obligations made in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogan

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rogan:
       Page 63, line 5, insert ``(reduced by $7,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 64, line 4, insert ``(reduced by $58,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 66, line 11, insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 66, line 20, insert ``(reduced by $15,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 66, line 24, insert ``(reduced by $15,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 68, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 68, line 16, insert ``(reduced by $31,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 79, line 19, insert ``(increased by $105,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. ROGAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, today the House is poised to cut more than 
$1 billion from NASA's space science budget. Sixty percent of these 
funds go directly to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This cut is a 
step backward for our Nation, which to date has led the world in 
pioneering the exploration of space.
  This is wrong and I urge my colleagues to join my friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia, and me to reverse this trend by voting for the 
Rogan-Bateman amendment. The Rogan-Bateman amendment will restore $105 
million to NASA's aeronautics, science and technology programs. These 
funds will go for investments that are science fact and not science 
fiction.
  These programs are not only important to local economies around the 
country, they are the root of a new economy for our Nation where high-
tech programs from years past become the commercial products of today.
  In just the last decade, technologies developed by NASA, JPL, and 
their affiliated programs have yielded products and services that have 
dramatically changed our way of life. For instance, it was these 
scientific experts that produced laser technology that now gives 
surgeons the ability to perform less invasive laser angioplasty 
surgery, which is helping thousands of Americans conquer heart disease.
  Also, NASA-JPL technology has provided engineers with powerful 
telecommunications components, making it easier for us to complete 
wireless telephone calls. In addition, JPL experts produced the 
infrared technology that led to the development of the inner ear 
thermometers we now use on a daily basis for our children.
  These are just a few examples, and they are just the tip of the 
iceberg. Our investment in NASA and JPL high-tech development has made 
all of this possible. The proposed cuts will deeply hurt our national 
scientific advantages in the future. A large portion of the proposed 
cuts to NASA are sent to research institutions, and these institutions, 
colleges large and small, provide the training ground for tomorrow's 
experts. Those who today wish to turn their backs on science are the 
heirs of those who scoffed at Columbus because they were sure that the 
Earth was flat.
  The Congress must look to tomorrow. Supporting NASA and JPL is an 
investment in our children's future. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the Rogan-Bateman amendment and join us in battling for full funding 
for JPL and other crucial NASA space science programs.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the concerns of my colleagues from 
California and Virginia. We have had, as the chairman has heard 
himself, a number of discussions about the reduction of $1 billion in 
NASA funding.
  This is a major reduction, there is no question about it. However, at 
the committee level we had a $1.4 billion reduction in NASA and were 
able to restore $400 million, taking it from the AmeriCorps program and 
putting it into NASA. Those decisions are very difficult to make.
  We are being asked to make another difficult decision today, take 
these funds away from EPA and give them to NASA. I have stated in the 
discussion that as we go down the road in this process, I will work 
with all Members to try to find a way, including with the 
administration and the Senate, to try to find a way to provide those 
needed funds for NASA to provide the research and development and the 
technology products they have worked on for so many years and that have 
provided so many benefits to humanity.

                              {time}  1800

  However, to take these funds out of an EPA budget, especially from 
this area, which ultimately are categorical grants, these funds would 
normally go to the States for clean water projects, for sewer projects, 
for environmental clean up projects in all 50 States.
  Now, as all colleagues know, many of our communities, our hometown 
communities, are under court order or under Federal mandate by EPA to 
clean up their water, to clean up their air, and to take care of the 
Superfund sites that are around the Nation. These funds would come out 
of that pool of available funds. I think it is a bad decision to take 
EPA funds, provide them to NASA when there may be some opportunity down 
the road to support the needs of the NASA program.
  So I would strongly urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to 
take the money from NASA and take the money from EPA and provide it to 
NASA because these funds are sorely needed for our environmental 
projects right here on Earth.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rogan-Bateman amendment 
because I think it is critical to the Nation's future. There is no 
question that we have to make difficult choices. I am in no way 
unsympathetic to the difficult choices the subcommittee and the full 
Committee on Appropriations have had to make. I think they have made 
choices that were not in the Nation's interest and which they would 
prefer not to have made. But we do have to make choices.
  One choice that I find not too difficult is to take from the EPA 
budget 1.55 percent of what is appropriated under the bill, leaving 
them with 99.9 percent of the full entire Presidential request for EPA, 
and transfer it to the NASA science, aeronautics, and technology 
accounts which have been desparately hit through an era where we have 
moved from a NASA budget that started at the end of the Bush 
administration at something like $14.55 billion and which, under the 
committee version of the bill, will have shrunk to $12.65 billion. Much 
of that has been taken out of the NASA aeronautics

[[Page H7946]]

budget which has declined by $400 million in the past 2 years.
  Today we are faced with a situation where aeronautical research in 
the United States is being starved to death, and we cannot permit it to 
continue. Our military aircraft are the best of the world because of 
the research performed by NASA. The Air Force F-15, F-16, B-2, F-22, C-
17 and C-130 J would not be as effective as they are today except for 
the research at NASA. The same can be said of the Navy and Marine 
Corps' F-14, F/A-18, the AV-8, and the EA-6B.
  If the NASA budget is allowed to decline further, the Nation will 
lose a decisive edge in military might. It will lose its edge in 
commercial aviation. It will lose its edge in the export of the largest 
producer toward a balance of payments in our favor in the country next 
to, if not including, agriculture.
  These are things we should not permit to happen, and the way to 
prevent doing it is to support the Rogan-Bateman amendment allowing EPA 
to get 99.9 percent of its budget request while NASA is not reduced by 
the 1 billion or more dollars that this would contemplate. I ask my 
colleagues' support for the Rogan-Bateman amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Let 
me first say that I recognize the good intentions of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman). I would agree with him that NASA science, 
aeronautics and technology account is seriously underfunded and will 
need a major influx of resources between now and the time it is sent to 
the White House.
  As I have said previously, I believe we should be increasing NASA's 
budget, not determining where it should be cut. Nevertheless, I must 
oppose the gentleman's amendment for the same reasons that I am 
opposing most of the NASA and NSF related amendments.
  First, this kind of amendment, if passed, could give the false 
impression that this part of the NASA budget is now fixed. Mr. 
Chairman, nothing could be further from the truth. The science, 
aeronautics, and technology allocation in this bill is $678 million 
below the current year appropriation. This amendment is something of a 
drop in the bucket.
  Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment due to the 
nature of the offsets which the gentleman has identified. Even without 
this amendment, the reductions to EPA already recommended by the 
Committee on Appropriations will reduce by $194 million the agency's 
operating programs which are the backbone of its environmental 
protection efforts, result in 246 fewer communities receiving grants 
under the Clean Air Partnership Fund to help them determine the best 
ways to clean their air and improve the health of their citizens, and 
lead to 25 fewer communities receiving funds to ensure safe and pure 
water.
  If those cuts that are already in the bill that I just enumerated are 
not enough, the gentleman's amendment would require an additional $100 
million reduction to EPA programs.
  The proposed amendment, if adopted, would lead to further reductions 
in Superfund to $15 million, which would mean the completion of fewer 
Superfund toxic waste sites.
  It would result in a further reduction to the clean water efforts, 
meaning that the 180 million Americans who visit the coast every year 
may experience more beach closures from sewage spills and pollution 
runoff.
  Twenty-eight million Americans whose jobs are supported by coastal 
waters could be impacted by increased fish contamination and low 
dissolved oxygen levels. A further reduction to air programs, which 
would mean that additional tons of air toxics will adversely affect the 
health of our most vulnerable populations.
  The gentleman's amendment would mean a further reduction to 
environmental enforcement meaning that fewer inspections and 
investigations would be conducted.
  The gentleman's amendment would result in cuts in funding for the 
agency's 9 compliance assistance centers, jeopardizing the support that 
thousands of facilities now receive.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, a reduction to the agency's important work 
would be affected if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, important 
work on pesticides safety, when that would mean that the agency could 
not complete the work Congress instructed it to do in the recent Food 
Safety Act. Hundreds of pesticide tolerances would not be reassessed. 
Foods with unacceptable levels of pesticide would go undetected and 
potentially put thousands of Americans at risk for cancer and birth 
defects.
  Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I would oppose the gentleman's 
amendment and would ask that my colleagues join me in defeating it.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), 
from the home of Thomas Jefferson and William and Mary, which he 
attended.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentleman 
yielding to me. Thomas Jefferson did, indeed, reside in my district 
when he attended the college of William and Mary.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to point out that, under the terms of the Rogan-
Bateman amendment, the Environmental Protection Agency accounts are not 
being ravaged or savaged. They are 99.9 percent of what the President 
requested for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  It does not come from any one single EPA account. The amendment is 
structured to take 1.1 percent from an account, 3.1 from an account 
that is a $1,815,000,000 account. This is not egregious to EPA.
  But believe me, to say that one of the defects of my amendment is 
that it is only a drop in the bucket of what NASA needs I think is 
turning sound argument upside down. I think it certainly behooves us to 
at least do that much and do it now when there is a clear way to do it, 
making a rational public policy choice.
  I urge my colleagues to make that choice by supporting the Rogan-
Bateman amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan) where Thomas Jefferson did not go to college.
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
can assure him Thomas Jefferson wishes he had gone to California, 
particularly UC Berkeley, my alma mater.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on the comments from the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) and respectfully respond to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The largest cut to EPA is a 3 percent cut that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bateman) just identified, and I want to read just briefly 
the type of things that we are seeking this minor reduction in: travel 
expenses, including uniforms or allowances thereof; hire of passenger 
motor vehicles; higher maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase 
of reprints; library memberships in societies or associations which 
issue publications to members only or at a price to members lower than 
subscribers.
  Mr. Chairman, this is hardly the gloom and doom scenario that has 
been outlined. This is a minor cut to a less than national security 
related program; and in exchange, we can fund science. I think clearly 
that our priorities ought to be in that regard rather than to library 
memberships and associations for EPA bureaucrats.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Weldon), our famous doctor.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe there are some powerful arguments on both 
sides of this issue. I recognize that the subcommittee chairman has a 
significant challenge. I rise in support of the amendment. This is a 
tough decision, I will agree to that.
  EPA does a lot of important work. But I remember reading a quote from 
John Kennedy once where he said one of the things that amazed him about 
the Presidency was that the decisions that percolated up to his level 
were all the tough decisions.
  This is a tough decision. But I think the gentleman's offsets are 
reasonable. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the amendment 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).

[[Page H7947]]

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rogan-Bateman amendment and in 
opposition to the severe cuts in the NASA budget. The bill before us 
today has a cut of $1 billion to NASA, an agency which has already seen 
its budget decline year after year for the past 4 years.
  I am especially concerned about the impact these cuts will have on 
future funding of aeronautics research and development programs. This 
research and development is crucial to preserve our Nation's long-
standing lead in the aviation market, to maintain continued 
advancements in aviation safety, and to continue to provide our 
military aircraft with technological advantages.
  We already know that aeronautics R&D funding will be $150 million 
less in 1999 and further cuts will be made in research in the fiscal 
year 2000 budget if this $1 billion cut to NASA is sustained.
  Previous cuts have already resulted in loss of valuable research. For 
example, one program has already been suspended. That successful 
program had already started significantly reducing noise of airplane 
engines. That program has been terminated before it can complete all it 
needed to do, and that is at a time when we are spending millions of 
dollars to insulate homes around Chicago's O'Hare's airport because of 
noise. It makes more sense to continue noise reduction research so 
houses around all airports could benefit.
  If the budget cuts remain, other valuable research will also be in 
jeopardy. We know, for example, Mr. Chairman, that investments in 
aeronautics research pays off. The aviation industry is the number one 
positive contributor to the United States balance of trade, now even 
surpassing agriculture with a net contribution to our economy of more 
than $41 billion in 1998. This economic advantage is directly 
attributable to our past investments and research.
  Every aircraft worldwide uses NASA-developed research. Principles 
developed from this research have contributed to overall aircraft 
safety and efficiency, including things like wing design, noise 
abatement, structural integrity, and fuel efficiency.
  It is important to remember that research was conducted over 5, 10, 
or even 20 years before the improvements were actually put on an 
airplane. So we are talking about long-term, sustained basic research 
that is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, it is also important to note that continued and 
increased investments in aeronautic research are crucial for 
advancements in aviation safety and improvements in airport capacity.
  We know that air traffic is expected to triple in the next decade. 
New concepts, design, and technologies have to evolve if costs are to 
be contained and safety and efficiency of aircraft are to be improved.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we also know that funding for aeronautics 
research is important to the national defense. This research is 
critical to maintain our military aircraft technological advantage. So 
any cuts in aeronautics research will raise troubling national security 
issues.

                              {time}  1815

  We simply cannot afford to go down the short-sighted road of funding 
cuts to NASA. Our aeronautic balance of trade, our future airline 
safety, our military superiority all depend on investments to NASA 
research. For those reasons, I support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rogan 
amendment to increase funding by $105 million for National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration's (NASA) Science, Aeronautics, and Technology 
account. The appropriators made a good faith effort to restore cuts to 
the Space Science budget during the bill's consideration by the full 
committee, but they did not go far enough. More needs to be done, now 
and in conference.
  Space Science has been the bright spot in NASA's research program. 
The space science community recognized the coming budget crunch years 
ago and enthusiastically embraced the ``faster, cheaper, better'' 
philosophy by doing business in a new way. The scientists and engineers 
who lead our space exploration efforts took on new technical 
challenges, applied more creative management techniques, and 
dramatically increased their productivity. This community is squeezing 
increased scientific and technical productivity out of every nickel. 
Who can forget Mars Pathfinder, which deposited a rover on the surface 
of Mars for one-fifth of the cost of previous Mars missions? In just 
the last few years, the space science community has cut the cost of 
spacecraft development by over 60 percent, reduced development time by 
25 percent, and increased flight rate by 300 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, space science is an example of good government and good 
science. It's also the kind of good government that we need to 
encourage by showing NASA's other enterprises and the rest of the 
federal bureaucracy that success is rewarded, not punished. As passed 
by Committee, the appropriations bill sends the wrong signal and makes 
the wrong kinds of cuts. The amendment corrects that oversight by 
transferring funds from a poorly-performing agency to a well-run 
scientific enterprise. It's an amendment we should all embrace.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rogan amendment to 
restore funding for NASA's aeronautics, science and technology 
accounts. While I compliment the Members of the Appropriations 
Committee for their determination to make the tough choices needed to 
ensure that the projected budget surplus becomes reality, I believe 
that H.R. 2684 underfunds NASA's important work. The Rogan amendment 
will help ensure that NASA has the resources it needs to complete its 
scientifically-rewarding unmanned research on-time and under-budget.
  H.R. 2684 provides for a reduction in NASA's budget of $925 million 
from the administration request. It is worth noting that this 
represents an increase of $400 million from the funding level initially 
approved by the VA-HUD subcommittee, and I thank Mr. Walsh and the 
members of the Committee for restoring these funds. Nevertheless, 
reducing NASA's budget by nearly $1 billion will threaten NASA's 
ability to move forward on a number of important projects. It would 
reduce the number of Space Shuttle missions that NASA can conduct in a 
given year, cancel comet exploration missions such as Deep Impact, and 
delay probes of Pluto and the Sun, as well as the international space 
station.
  NASA's budget has been reduced in each year since 1992 and NASA has 
done an admirable job in showing other federal departments how to do 
more with less. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, completed 
the memorable Mars Sojourner/Pathfinder mission for less than it costs 
to produce some Hollywood blockbusters. However, the reduction proposed 
in H.R. 2684 could do real damage to NASA's long-term mission. Given 
our great interest in developing a better understanding of the Solar 
System and the universe, I believe Congress must ensure NASA an 
appropriate level of funding. Furthermore, besides the benefits we 
derive from learning more about the universe, the space program has 
helped to produce myriad commercial spinoffs that benefit the lives of 
average Americans every day--from compact computers to CD players to 
the global positioning system.
  Mr. Chairman, while I differ with Members of the Appropriations 
Committee on some of their spending priorities, I want to compliment 
them for their commitment to spending restraint. When Congress agreed 
two years ago to limit future growth in federal spending, we knew that 
it would require fiscal discipline, but it was necessary to bring us 
the first balanced federal budget in a generation. Now, while Congress 
is making the tough choices, the President is pretending that we can 
increase spending on everything and still have a balanced budget. 
Through their willingness to support spending bills that are sometimes 
unpopular, Members of Congress are protecting Social Security and 
reducing the debt burden that we leave for the next generation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rogan) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 Environmental Programs and Management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or 
     allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for 
     individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the 
     maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5 
     U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, 
     maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints; 
     library memberships in societies or

[[Page H7948]]

     associations which issue publications to members only or at a 
     price to members lower than to subscribers who are not 
     members; construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, 
     and renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per 
     project; and not to exceed $6,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, $1,850,000,000, which shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001: Provided, That the 
     obligated balance of such sums shall remain available through 
     September 30, 2008 for liquidating obligations made in fiscal 
     years 2000 and 2001: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose or issue 
     rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of 
     implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the 
     Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in 
     Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference of the Parties to the 
     United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which 
     has not been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent 
     to ratification pursuant to article II, section 2, clause 2, 
     of the United States Constitution, and which has not entered 
     into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to implement or administer the interim guidance 
     issued on February 5, 1998, by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency relating to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     and designated as the ``Interim Guidance for Investigating 
     Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits'' with 
     respect to complaints filed under such title after October 
     21, 1998, and until guidance is finalized. Nothing in this 
     proviso may be construed to restrict the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from developing or issuing final guidance 
     relating to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided in this 
     appropriation, $6,000,000 shall be made available to the 
     states under the section 103 grants program for developing 
     regional haze programs under title I, part C of the Clean Air 
     Act, as amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding 7 
     U.S.C. 136r and 15 U.S.C. 2609, beginning in fiscal year 2000 
     and thereafter, grants awarded under section 20 of the 
     Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as 
     amended, and section 10 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
     as amended, shall be available for research, development, 
     monitoring, public education, training, demonstrations, and 
     studies.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $75,000 per project, $30,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided, That the sums available 
     in this account shall remain available through September 30, 
     2008 for liquidating obligations made in fiscal years 2000 
     and 2001: Provided further, That the obligated balance of 
     funds transferred to this account in Public Law 105-276 shall 
     remain available through September 30, 2007 for liquidating 
     obligations made in fiscal years 1999 and 2000.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $62,600,000, to remain available until expended.


                     Hazardous Substance Superfund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     not to exceed $1,450,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of $725,000,000, as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law 
     101-508, and $725,000,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as 
     authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended by Public 
     Law 101-508: Provided, That funds appropriated under this 
     heading may be allocated to other Federal agencies in 
     accordance with section 111(a) of CERCLA: Provided further, 
     That $11,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be transferred to the ``Office of inspector general'' 
     appropriation to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding section 111(m) of 
     CERCLA or any other provision of law, $70,000,000 of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading shall be available to 
     the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to carry 
     out activities described in sections 104(i), 111(c)(4), and 
     111(c)(14) of CERCLA and section 118(f) of SARA: Provided 
     further, That $35,000,000 of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading shall be transferred to the ``Science and 
     technology'' appropriation to remain available until 
     September 30, 2001: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for the 
     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to issue in 
     excess of 40 toxicological profiles pursuant to section 
     104(i) of CERCLA during fiscal year 2000.


              Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $60,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                           oil spill response

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.


                   State and Tribal Assistance Grants

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $3,199,957,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,175,000,000 shall be 
     for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended, and $775,000,000 shall be for 
     capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
     amended, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds made 
     available under this heading in this Act, or in previous 
     appropriations acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator 
     for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants; 
     $36,500,000 for a clean air partnership fund demonstration 
     program under section 103 of the Clean Air Act to support 
     programs to achieve early, integrated reductions in emissions 
     of air pollutants, including local revolving funds and other 
     mechanisms for leveraging non-Federal resources; $50,000,000 
     for architectural, engineering, planning, design, 
     construction and related activities in connection with the 
     construction of high priority water and wastewater facilities 
     in the area of the United States-Mexico Border, after 
     consultation with the appropriate border commission; 
     $15,000,000 for grants to the State of Alaska to address 
     drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs of rural 
     and Alaska Native Villages; $263,500,000 for making grants 
     for the construction of wastewater and water treatment 
     facilities and groundwater protection infrastructure in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions specified for such 
     grants in the report accompanying this Act (H.R. 2684); and 
     $884,957,000 for grants, including associated program support 
     costs, to States, federally recognized tribes, interstate 
     agencies, tribal consortia, and air pollution control 
     agencies for multi-media or single media pollution 
     prevention, control and abatement and related activities, 
     including activities pursuant to the provisions set forth 
     under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for making 
     grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for particulate 
     matter monitoring and data collection activities: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as amended, the limitation on the 
     amounts in a State water pollution control revolving fund 
     that may be used by a State to administer the fund shall not 
     apply to amounts included as principal in loans made by such 
     fund in fiscal year 2000 and prior years where such amounts 
     represent costs of administering or capitalizing the fund, to 
     the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable by 
     the Administrator, accounted for separately from other assets 
     in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the fund, 
     including administration or for capitalization of the fund: 
     Provided further, That beginning in fiscal year 2000 and 
     thereafter, notwithstanding section 518(f) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the Administrator is 
     authorized to use the amounts appropriated for any fiscal 
     year under section 319 of that Act to make grants to Indian 
     Tribes pursuant to section 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, all claims for principal and interest registered through 
     grant dispute AA-91-A34 or any other such dispute hereafter 
     filed by the Environmental Protection Agency relative to 
     water pollution control center and sewer system improvement 
     grants numbers C-390996-01, C-390996-2, and C-390996-3 made 
     in 1976 and 1977 are hereby resolved in favor of the grantee.
       The Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State 
     Department of Environmental Conservation are authorized to 
     award, from construction grant reallotments to the State of 
     New York of previously appropriated funds, supplemental grant 
     assistance to Nassau County, New York, for additional odor 
     control at the Bay Park and Cedar Creek wastewater treatment 
     plants, notwithstanding initiation of construction or prior 
     State Revolving Fund funding. Nassau County may elect to 
     accept a combined lump-sum of $15,000,000, paid in advance of 
     construction, in lieu of a 75 percent entitlement, to 
     minimize grant and project administration.

                   Executive Office of the President


                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire

[[Page H7949]]

     of passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $5,108,000.


  Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,827,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 202 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist 
     of one member, appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and 
     exercising all powers, functions, and duties of the Council.

  Mr. BATEMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Have we reached 
page 70?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. We have passed page 70 in the reading, and 
the Clerk currently has read through page 72, line 16.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to raise a point 
of order against a provision on page 70, line 15 through page 70, line 
22?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  Mr. WALSH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I raise an objection that the 
provision that I referred to, regarding nonpoint source grant funding 
for Indian tribes, is legislation on an appropriations bill in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House. I have 
been asked to object on behalf of the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has reserved a 
right to object. Does the gentleman from New York wish to be heard?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. It is our understanding that this 
legislation was protected under the rule and thereby in order, and I 
would await the Chair's ruling.
  Mr. Chairman, in further discussion with staff, it is my 
understanding that this is not protected under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, for that reason I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his reservation of 
objection.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. BATEMAN. Yes, on behalf of the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment, who has now appeared.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia makes a point 
of order against the proviso beginning on line 15, page 70 through 
``Act:'' on line 22. The proviso waives the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act. Waiving provisions of existing law constitutes legislation 
on an appropriations bill. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained 
and the proviso is stricken.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $33,666,000, to be derived from the Bank 
     Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and 
     the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            Disaster Relief

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $300,000,000, and, notwithstanding 42 
     U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which not 
     to exceed $3,000,000 may be transferred to ``Emergency 
     management planning and assistance'' for the consolidated 
     emergency management performance grant program.


            Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,295,000, as authorized by 
     section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $25,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $420,000.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for 
     senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of 
     attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at 
     meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness; 
     transportation in connection with the continuity of 
     Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10 
     U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, $177,720,000.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $6,515,000.


              Emergency Management Planning and Assistance

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
     405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $280,787,000: 
     Provided, That for purposes of pre-disaster mitigation 
     pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 5131 (b) and (c) and 42 U.S.C. 5196 (e) 
     and (i), $25,000,000 of the funds made available under this 
     heading shall be available until expended for project grants: 
     Provided further, That beginning in fiscal year 2000 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, and notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Director of FEMA is authorized to 
     provide assistance from funds appropriated under this 
     heading, subject to terms and conditions as the Director of 
     FEMA shall establish, to any State for multi-hazard 
     preparedness and mitigation through consolidated emergency 
     management performance grants.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 75, line 5, insert ``(reduced by $12,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 75, line 5, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have heard me 
acknowledge to both the ranking member and the chairman on what is 
becoming some very difficult decisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I have lived with NASA and the commitment that NASA has 
given to the American people to be fiscally responsible for some 4 
years now as a Member of Congress and a member of the House Committee 
on Science. At the beginning of my tenure in Congress, one of the 
things that NASA was charged with was to be efficient, effective, and 
to downscale some of its operations. In doing so, Dan Goldin, almost at 
the start of my first term, had to cut various jobs in all of the 
centers, whether it was in Florida, or whether it was in Alabama or the 
Johnson Space Center.
  Particularly in the State of Texas, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that 
the Johnson Space Center has a special place in our heart. It was 
there, of course, that many of the heroes of the space movement had 
their launch or had the cooperation and collaboration with those at 
Johnson. We are well aware of the famous words, ``Houston we have a 
problem.'' But one thing about Houston and the Johnson Space Center, 
they solve the problems.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to join me in moving $10 
million to the Human Space Flight program, the program that saw 
Commander Eileen Collins be the first woman to command one of our 
shuttles; the program, Mr. Chairman, that

[[Page H7950]]

saw John Glenn test the ultimate strength of human beings and test the 
aging process by being the oldest person to go into space.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a terrible plight that we find ourselves in, 
but this program, the Human Space Flight program, deals in a variety of 
needs that we have. What it deals with is the ability to conduct and 
support human space flight research and development activities, 
including research, development operations, services, maintenance, 
construction of facilities, including repair; rehabilitation, and 
modification of real and personal property. It has to do with 
spacecraft control and communication activities. These dollars wil help 
us stay on track with the Human Space Flight program.
  On the other hand, I am not cutting the disaster aid that goes to our 
respective communities. I am not cutting the dollars that would help us 
in flood control. I am not cutting the dollars that would help us after 
terrible tornadoes or hurricanes. None of that is being cut. But, Mr. 
Chairman, there are certain predisaster mitigation grants, which I 
think with the increase in the ability of local governments to focus on 
their own needs, this is an area where they can help us, which is 
helping their communities be focused on mitigating potential disasters. 
None of these dollars I am speaking of in any way would interfere with 
any of the needs our communities would have, such as the tragedy of 
Hurricane Dennis on the Carolinas.
  So I would ask my colleagues to recognize that the Johnson Space 
Center in Houston covers some 15,000 people. We have a number of 
contract employees. Dan Goldin has downsized to the extent that he has 
privatized. He predicts a 3-week furlough for NASA employees with these 
ultimate cuts. I would say if we keep these kind of cuts, Mr. Chairman, 
that we will be going down a slippery path, one from which we cannot 
return.
  Earlier today on the floor of the House I said that the cuts in NASA 
and the cuts in the Human Space Flight program are similar to building 
or rebuilding the San Francisco Bridge. Imagine midway over the waters 
in California we simply stopped building it. Or maybe we should say the 
Brooklyn Bridge. We always use the phrase ``Can I sell you the Brooklyn 
Bridge?'' Imagine in the middle of rebuilding it, we just immediately 
stopped. What would happen to America and, as well, to those 
communities? They would simply drop off.
  Cutting the Human Space Flight program, one of the marks of space 
exploration, one of the responses to President Kennedy's challenges to 
America that we too could go into space, is a tragedy. I would hope my 
colleagues would join me in this very sensible and reasonable amendment 
that would add $10 million to the Human Space Flight program.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer this amendment that would add $10 
million to NASA's Human Space Flight program.
  This cut to the Human Space Flight program untenable. Jobs are at 
stake. As a Representative for the City of Houston, I cannot stand by 
and watch my Houstonians lose their jobs because of these cuts. the 
Johnson Space Center in Houston provides work for over 15,000 people. 
The workforce consists of approximately 3,000 NASA Federal civil 
service employees. In addition to these employees are over 12,000 
contractor employees. These employees represent both big and small 
businesses, and their very livelihoods are at stake--especially those 
in small business.
  Dan Goldin, head of NASA, has already anticipated the devastating 
effects of the NASA cuts. He predicts a 3 week furlough for all NASA 
employees. This would create program interruptions and would result in 
greater costs. Ladies and gentleman, we are falling, if not tumbling, 
down a slippery slope. This bill would reduce jobs for engineers and 
would increase NASA's costs, a result that will only result in more 
layoffs as costs exceed NASA's fiscal abilities.
  By providing money for human space flight, we ensure that NASA will 
continue to fund its projects such as ISS and the space shuttle, and in 
doing so, NASA will continue to require our American workers.
  We are at a dangerous crossroads. This bill gives our engineers and 
our science academics a vote of no confidence. It tells them that we 
will not reward Americans who spend their lifetimes studying and 
researching on behalf of space exploration. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in my effort to stop the bleeding.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
would like to comment on the NASA portion of this bill, and 
specifically about an amendment this was discussed a few minutes ago.
  Let me say that I appreciate the predicament my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), is in. In February, President Clinton 
submitted another in a string of budgets that cuts NASA. And even that 
small cut that we are talking about depended on billions of dollars of 
phony taxes and other gimmicks that the President knew would never 
become part of the law, thus putting the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) in a very bad situation. And while they pretend to honor the 
spending caps from the 1997 budget agreement, the administration ends 
up bashing the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for cutting NASA 
while the administration itself is being irresponsible in the way they 
propose their budget.
  Let us remember this. Three years ago the President submitted a NASA 
budget that predicted a billion dollars less for fiscal year 2000 than 
the amount for NASA contained in this fiscal year 2000 appropriation 
bill. So I do not think that President Clinton has much of a position 
to attack the gentleman from New York on the effort he has made in 
trying to make some sense out of this appropriation bill.
  The total funding level for NASA in this bill should be higher. I 
believe it should be higher. Unfortunately, it is not. I am sure the 
gentleman from New York would like it to be higher if it could be. In 
May, the House passed a 3-year NASA authorization bill which gave NASA 
a slight increase for 2000. In that context, I support many of the 
priorities for NASA within this bill.
  I note that funding for space transportation technology was actually 
increased, and one of the few areas in NASA to receive an increase, I 
might add. I am happy that the chairman was able to add back $400 
million for NASA's excellent space science programs in full committee. 
I appreciate the plus-up for space solar power, for example, which is 
an important research area. And I strongly agree with the committee's 
report language on space station commercialization, which supports the 
Committee on Science's long-standing attempts to push NASA in this 
direction.
  While I am sure the gentleman from New York and his colleagues will 
work hard to improve NASA's funding in conference, I will have to 
support the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) to restore funding for 
research and technology as far as the space science and aeronautics 
part of this budget.

                              {time}  1830

  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) restores funding for the 
scientific analysis of data that we have gotten back from programs like 
Mars Pathfinder and Lunar Prospector. I think that is very admirable.
  Where do they get this money from that they are trying to restore 
this? They get it from the bloated budget, what I consider to be a 
bloated budget, of the Environmental Protection Agency by eliminating 
that or by reducing it by just over 1 percent. And I think that is a 
very reasonable, reasonable change, and what they are trying to do for 
space science and aeronautics is a very positive step.
  Speaking as former chairman of the authorizing subcommittee that 
oversees EPA, I know that under this administration EPA has become 
somewhat of a rogue agency. For example, EPA has published regulations 
based on phony science and helped negotiate the Kyoto Protocol even 
after the Senate unanimously advised the administration not to do so. 
So I would think taking one percent from the EPA and putting it into 
space, science, and aeronautics, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bateman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) are suggesting, 
is a very reasonable thing to do, and I strongly support that 
amendment.
  While understanding that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) 
has to oppose this amendment in order to defend his bill, I do 
congratulate the chairman for the good

[[Page H7951]]

job that he has done. I also know that we would not be in this 
predicament if it would not have been for the fact that the President 
of the United States has acted irresponsibly in developing this part of 
the budget.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in 
opposition to the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. There is another dilemma presented by 
another amendment, and the dilemma is that what the gentlewoman from 
Texas has asked us to do is take funds from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, the agency that is responsible for responding to 
emergencies all over the country, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, 
floods, droughts, and so forth, and put that money into human space 
flight. It is a difficult choice because we have, as has been noted, 
reduced NASA fairly dramatically. But I would urge my colleagues not to 
support the amendment.
  This is the number one priority of Director Witt of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. His number one priority is to provide pre-
disaster mitigation so that we can begin to reduce the cost of 
disasters as they occur around the country. This is money up front to 
try to bring down the cost of disaster relief in the long-run and it is 
a priority of this subcommittee also, and I would urge my colleagues to 
reject this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know the chairman and I are 
going to continue to work on this issue and I know that the chairman 
has heard us, and he may hear me again, talk about the devastation of 
the $1 billion cut to NASA and Sophie's choices.
  I would certainly like to inquire of the chair the opportunity to 
work together on this issue and to help resolve the point of somewhat 
of a crisis of dealing with the important research that NASA does and 
particularly space exploration and particularly the International Space 
Station as we move this legislation along.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I absolutely pledge to 
work with the gentlewoman. We have had this discussion a number of 
times with a number of Members who are deeply concerned about NASA. We 
know there is not enough money in there right now with NASA. We are not 
complete with this process.
  As we go forward, my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), and I have talked about this. We would like to see what we 
can do to resolve some of these issues, and I would be happy to work 
with my colleague on that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) be permitted to offer an amendment which 
is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutierrez

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
       Page 29, line 26, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 5, after the first dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: (``increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 79, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 80, line 14, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. GUTIERREZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores Brownfields 
appropriations to the current $25 million level by transferring $5 
million from NASA's Human Space Flight account into HUD's Brownfields 
Redevelopment account.
  In fiscal year 2000, the very least we should do is maintain this 
year's spending levels for programs that generate jobs and help 
neighborhoods in other important ways. Instead, H.R. 2684 gouges 
appropriations, including over half a billion dollars for public 
housing funds in order to meet Congress's self-imposed budget caps and 
to fund an enormous tax cut.
  My amendment seeks to reprioritize our budget by putting people 
first. In other words, we should cut the least from programs that 
directly help people.
  This initiative is one that will deliver the kinds of jobs and 
development needed desperately by these distressed towns and urban 
neighborhoods; and it is called the Brownfields Redevelopment, a small, 
modest, cost-effective program that should not be made smaller.
  Brownfields' goal is to return contaminated sites to productive, 
employment-generating uses. The program emphasizes job creation for 
lower income people and economically distressed neighborhoods. Nearly 
450 sites across our country qualify as Brownfields sites.
  In my own congressional district, a contaminated parcel that used to 
be the former Hammond Refrigerated Warehouse site at 4555 South Racine. 
When re-habbed, this currently vacant parcel will return to commercial 
use with a new 190,000 square foot industrial building and 200 new jobs 
for low- and moderate-income Chicago residents and adds handsomely to 
the tax base.
  The amendment also restores HOME Investments Partnership funding to 
its fiscal year 1999 level by transferring $20 million from NASA's 
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Account to HUD's HOME account. I 
am offering this amendment for one clear reason. There is a serious 
shortage of affordable housing in the United States.
  Currently, rents are increasing faster than wages almost everywhere 
and nowhere in the country can a household with one full-time minimum 
wage earner afford basic housing costs.
  As a result, a record 5.3 million low-income households are spending 
more than half their incomes on rent, leaving precious little money for 
food, clothing, day care, insurance, transportation, education, and all 
of the other costs associated with raising a family. Funds must come 
from some source to help cities and towns expand housing for low- and 
moderate-income working class families. Why? Because it is the right 
thing to do for our constituents who earn too little and pay too much 
for rent, often falling into homelessness.
  The HOME Investment Partnership program is one of the few Federal 
initiatives for encouraging the development of affordable housing. It 
is a success story.
  Since 1990, HOME has financed some 350,000 units of housing for low- 
and moderate-income families. Every American hurts when families cannot 
find safe, decent, warm, affordable housing in communities where they 
work.
  Again I ask we prioritize families first.
  The amendment also restores Homeless Assistance Grants to the FY 1999 
level by transferring $5 million. Homeless Assistance Grants provide 
shelter and services to people without homes.
  This $5 million amendment may seem small considering the VA-HUD 
appropriation bill deals with almost $90 billion dollars. And a $5 
million cut to HUD's Homeless Assistance program from FY 1999 levels 
may seem small. After all, H.R. 2684 slashes funding to important 
public housing programs by more than half a billion dollars as it 
reduces community development block grants by 250.
  However, the Homeless Assistance cuts, as well as those to 
Brownfields and HOME, are significant. Our priorities are wrong when we 
retreat from a commitment to helping the most vulnerable people in our 
country when there are 750 people who are homeless in America on any 
given night. During

[[Page H7952]]

a year, as many as 2 million people experience homelessness for a short 
period of time.
  If we reduce Homeless Assistance Grants, we reduce our compassion and 
our intelligence. When we refuse adequate Federal assistance to 
individuals and families on the street, we increase the potential for 
emergency room visits, crime, deaths, and the stunting of homeless 
children's educational and emotional development.
  Our Nation is richer than ever before. Shame on us if we cut 
assistance to people living on streets and sidewalks during a period of 
historic Dow Jones Industrial Average record-breaking corporate 
profits, an increasing tax revenue.
  I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the amendment of the gentleman and the 
sentiments in the amendment. These are issues that are of concern to 
all of us who represent urban areas, Brownfield sites, homeless grants.
  What this amendment does is it restores funding to the 1999 level of 
funding for these programs. These are very difficult programs to reduce 
funding in.
  What we tried to do when we made these decisions was to reduce across 
the board as much as we could different programs. We did not want to 
gut these programs because we felt they were good programs, so we made 
slight reductions in order to get to the budget number that we were 
allocated.
  By taking money out of NASA and putting it into these programs, we 
further got an agency that has suffered huge cuts. And what that 
translates to is the Gutierrez amendment would restore $25, $30 million 
to these programs, but what he would do is take them from the three 
areas of NASA where they have already suffered $900 million in cuts. 
So, basically, it adds insult to injury to the NASA budget.
  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because NASA 
cannot take any more reductions and these programs, while important, 
are funded at a much higher percentage of what they were funded 
compared to the NASA program. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gutierrez amendment to 
increase HUD Brownfields Redevelopment activities, to increase HUD's 
HOME program, and to increase funding for HUD's Homeless Assistance 
Grants.
  Many of our inner-city communities throughout the country are replete 
with industrial wasteland in need of reclamation and redevelopment. 
There is tremendous need for homeless assistance, need to increase 
affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families.
  Each and every day, thousands of citizens throughout the country go 
out looking for affordable housing only to be told that there is none 
available.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague from 
Illinois, and from Chicago specifically, for yielding.
  I guess I understand the arguments made by the chairman of the 
committee. I would just like to say that as the House considers this 
amendment that, as we continue space exploration, I would like to 
simply suggest to America tonight that we look at our own homes, we 
look at our own neighborhoods, we look at our own Nation, we look at 
our own planet Earth.
  I want people to understand what Brownfields means. It means 
contaminated, polluted areas, over hundreds of thousands of them that 
have already been sighted across our Nation. It seems ironic to me that 
we are going to continue to spend money.
  The chairman is absolutely correct when he suggests that the NASA 
program has been cut by $9 million but HUD has been cut by a billion 
dollars.

                              {time}  1845

  So in the parlance of congressional discourse, they may seem equal. 
So I guess then the question is, what are our priorities? Are we going 
to take care of our own contaminated neighborhoods and sites across our 
own Nation, as we venture into space, and lose our own planet Earth, 
which I think we quickly need to reclaim first before we ever pretend 
to claim outerspace.
  Secondly, I would just like everybody to think for a moment. It seems 
interesting that I know that the astronauts as they look back on Earth, 
they cannot see the 750,000 people that are homeless at that given 
night in our country, but I assure my colleagues that it is a cold and 
a mean and a very desperate situation that 750,000 people and up to 2 
million in any year see.
  So as they look out into the stars, I wish we would give them some 
hope also, so as we explore space we take care of our own.
  Third, let us not create homelessness by inaction of this Congress. 
The home program works and it forms those wonderful partnerships 
between the public and private sector and, as I said, created over 
350,000 units of housing since 1990. It is a success story. Let us 
continue on those success stories.
  Mr. Chairman, last, I would just like to add, let us remember that we 
are dealing within the confines of this budget. We really do not need 
to. We have hundreds of billions of dollars in our surplus. I think we 
can find $30 million to reduce homelessness, to clean up contaminated 
waste sites across our Nation and to make sure that families who are 
out there in the cold can come in and feel the warmth and the humanity 
which this Congress can give them by allowing this modest increase of 
$30 million.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I too agree 
with the chairman that space exploration is important, but so is it 
important that people in our communities have affordable places to 
live, to work, to grow and develop so that they too can help explore 
space.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Gutierrez amendment. The measure will nickel and dime NASA to death.
  This amendment cuts $5 million out of NASA's Human Spaceflight 
programs to fund the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Brownfields 
Redevelopment program. In addition, Mr. Gutierrez cuts $20 million out 
of Science, Aeronautics and Technology and $5 million out of Mission 
Support to fund other HUD programs.
  When taken together, these amendments would cut NASA's budget by $30 
million. These amendments take money out of our investments in science 
and technology, which will benefit future generations, and put that 
money into current consumption. In short, the amendments are akin to 
eating our seed corn.
  The bill already underfunds NASA. These amendments will worsen NASA's 
ends-means mismatch since they do not reduce any of NASA's programmatic 
responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, the country's elected officials can't keep asking the 
space program to do more with less. That makes no sense. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Gutierrez amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Gutierrez) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Veterans Health 
     Administration--medical care'', insert at the end the 
     following:

       In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $1,100,000,000: 
     Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the entire such 
     amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall 
     be available only to the extent of a specific dollar amount 
     for such purpose that is included in an official budget 
     request transmitted by the President to the Congress and that 
     is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to such 
     section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H7953]]

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking all afternoon on this 
bill, and I think we have all agreed that veterans programs are vastly 
underfunded. Everybody would like to try to find a way to change that. 
I am offering a way to do that.
  In my amendment, an additional $1.1 billion is added to veterans 
health care by declaring an emergency with regard to the health care of 
our veterans.
  This figure was not arrived at arbitrarily. All of our Nation's 
veterans got together during this budget process and came up with a 
budget, a responsible budget and a professional budget, what they 
called an independent budget, which said what would be needed at the 
absolute minimum to keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans after 
almost 5 years of straightline budgeting, which resulted basically in a 
real cut in services; what would be needed to keep our commitment to 
our veterans.
  They decided that about a $3 billion increase would be necessary, and 
they pointed out the programs and the areas that would be funded with 
that $3 billion.
  The committee plussed-up that account by $1.7 billion. I would like 
to add the $1.1 billion that these veterans requested.
  We have a true emergency here, Mr. Chairman. Keeping the promise we 
made to our veterans is an emergency. Providing health care is an 
emergency. The VA health care is drastically underfunded and in danger 
of collapse, and we must change that.
  What are we going to get for that $1.1 billion that we do not get 
now? We get care for veterans who are involved in radiation risk 
activities and subsequently develop cancer. We get funding for new 
health care initiatives for veterans suffering from hepatitis C-related 
illnesses.
  These are often fatal, Mr. Chairman. Earlier in the debate I said 
something to the effect that thousands of our veterans had hepatitis C. 
I made a mistake. The figure is closer to 2 million of our veterans, 
Mr. Chairman, and we have no provision for funding to help those 
veterans.
  This billion would go to increase programs for long-term care for our 
aging veterans. They would restore beds in psychiatric wards and 
increase mental illness research education. They would allow veterans 
to stay in hospitals if they have Alzheimer's and would help our 
Persian Gulf War illness veterans who are suffering today.
  Now when I offered these amendments earlier in the day, I was told by 
my good friend, the chairman of the committee, that well, we plussed it 
up from the President's request.
  Yes, we will stipulate the President made an inadequate request. He 
underfunded by $3 billion, but this is our budget now, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Chairman, this is a congressional budget. Let us do the right 
thing.
  When I brought this up earlier, it was said that we had the biggest 
increase in this bill ever for veterans health care. That may be so in 
the short run but that comes on top of 5 years of real cuts, real 
dollar cuts, and presupposes, Mr. Chairman, a $3 billion deficit over 
the next 10 years, which this is building on.
  Finally, the chairman says, well, this is legislating in an 
appropriations bill.
  Well, we legislate all the time in an appropriations bill. Let us 
legislate for our veterans. Let us put in this $1.1 billion, and I hope 
that my colleagues will allow us to take this emergency action today.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on a point of order against the 
amendment, if I could explain further.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) may 
state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have had this debate, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner) and I, for the better part of the afternoon.
  The issue here is the offset that he provides under the rule, and he 
is asking for an emergency declaration. We considered that process and 
ultimately rejected it.
  What we did was we found real dollars within the budget to allocate 
for veterans health, and what we did was provide a $1.7 billion 
increase over the President's request.
  As the gentleman has stipulated to and agreed to, and I think it is a 
unanimous agreement now, the President's request for veterans medical 
health was not only inadequate, it was embarrassing. They later came 
back and they suggested that, yes, they thought that the $1.7 billion 
level was the right level and supported it. We received a letter from 
the Vice President on that.
  We also received letters from the American Legion and from the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars who agreed that $1.7 billion was the right 
amount to fund veterans health care.
  I looked back at the budgets of the last 5 years, including this 
budget. We have gone from $15.7 billion in the 1996 enacted level to 
$19 billion this year. That is a $3.5 billion increase in funding for 
veterans. So we have striven mightily, in spite of the lack of support 
there seems to be in the executive branch for the veterans medical care 
budget.
  The Congress, both parties, have supported plussing up this budget, 
and we made hard choices, as we have heard in the debate today. NASA 
was cut a billion dollars. There are programs in HUD operating 
subsidies, modernization funds in public housing where we had to go to 
help to fund the veterans health care. People want more money for 
Section 8 vouchers, but the choices were difficult.
  We cannot appropriate these funds because they are not available to 
us, Mr. Chairman. For that reason, I would restate and insist on the 
point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change 
existing law, constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill; 
therefore, violates clause 2, rule XXI and because it violates section 
306 of the Budget Act that deals with matters in the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on the Budget.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) seek to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, speaking on the point of order, Mr. 
Chairman, I say to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
I want to legislate on this appropriations bill. We were not allowed to 
do any legislation in our authorizing committee. The Chair just refused 
to allow motions from the minority side.
  The gentleman says we have real dollars for our $1.7 billion. I am 
asking for real dollars here. We have it in our command. It is being 
given to people, special interests, in the utility industry. It is 
being given to special interests for multinational corporations. It is 
being given to those who make $200,000 or more a year. Why not give a 
billion to the veterans who made our country as great as it is?
  So we have the real dollars, Mr. Chairman, and we should legislate on 
this appropriations bill, and I hope the Chair would find in our favor.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair finds that a proposal to 
designate an appropriation as ``emergency spending'' within the meaning 
of the budget-enforcement laws is fundamentally legislative in 
character. It does not merely make the appropriation. Instead, it 
characterizes the appropriation otherwise made. The resulting emergency 
designation alters the application of existing law with respect to that 
appropriation. Thus, the proposal is one to change existing law. On 
these premises and based on previous rulings of the Chair earlier 
today, the Chair holds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California, by including a proposal to designate an appropriation as 
``emergency spending'' within the meaning of the budget-enforcement 
laws, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI 
1.
  The Chair also finds that a proposal to designate an appropriation as 
``emergency spending'' within the meaning of the budget-enforcement 
laws is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget 
under clause 1(e) of rule X.
  On that premise the Chair holds that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California, because it relates to such a matter on a 
bill that was not referred to that committee, also violates section 306 
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The point of order is sustained on each of the grounds stated. The 
amendment is not in order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, with deep personal respect, on behalf of 
our

[[Page H7954]]

Nation's veterans, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 15-minute vote. Immediately 
following this vote, the Chair announces that proceedings will resume 
on the amendments postponed earlier today, and those votes will be 
reduced to not less than 5 minutes each.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 198, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berry
     Buyer
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Sununu
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1911

  Mr. STARK, Mr. CONDIT and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MICA, SMITH of Texas, ARCHER, SCHAFFER, BACHUS and FOLEY and 
Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCarthy of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 390, 
sustaining the Chair's point of order of Filner Amendment, I was 
unavoidably detained due to mechanical delays with U.S. Air flight No. 
348. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________