[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.''
____________________