[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8020-H8044]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2684.

                              {time}  1316


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2684) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry 
independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Pease (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, September 8, 1999, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) had been disposed of and the bill was 
open for amendment from page 74, line 17, through page 75, line 18.
  Are there further amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
and I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to return to page 64 for 
consideration of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I object. The amendment of the gentleman is 
out of order. That portion of the bill has already been completed, and 
by regular order he would not be allowed to reenter the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2000, as 
     authorized by Public Law 105-276, shall not be less than 100 
     percent of the amounts anticipated by FEMA necessary for its 
     radiological emergency preparedness program for the next 
     fiscal year. The methodology for assessment and collection of 
     fees shall be fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of 
     providing such services, including administrative costs of 
     collecting such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section 
     shall be deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and 
     will become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 
     2000, and remain available until expended.


                   Emergency Food and Shelter Program

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $110,000,000: 
     Provided, That total administrative costs shall not exceed 
     three and one-half percent of the total appropriation.


                      flood map modernization fund

       For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, $5,000,000, and such 
     additional sums as may be provided by State or local 
     governments or other political subdivisions for cost shared 
     mapping activities under section 1360(f)(2), to remain 
     available until expended.


                  national insurance development fund

       Notwithstanding the provisions of 12 U.S.C. 1735d(b) and 12 
     U.S.C. 1749bbb-13(b)(6), any indebtedness of the Director of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency resulting from the 
     Director borrowing sums under such sections before the date 
     of enactment of this Act to carry out title XII of the 
     National Housing Act shall be canceled, and the Director 
     shall not be obligated to repay such sums or any interest 
     thereon, and no further interest shall accrue on such sums.


                     National Flood Insurance Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, 
     not to exceed $24,333,000 for salaries and expenses 
     associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance 
     operations, and not to exceed $78,710,000 for flood 
     mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under 
     section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act, which 
     amount shall be available for transfer to the National Flood 
     Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2001. In fiscal year 
     2000, no funds in excess of: (1) $47,000,000 for operating 
     expenses; (2) $456,427,000 for agents' commissions and taxes; 
     and (3) $50,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall 
     be available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations. For fiscal 
     year 2000, flood insurance rates shall not exceed the level 
     authorized by the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 
     1994.


                     national flood mitigation fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding sections 1366(b)(3)(B)-(C) and 1366(f) of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
     $20,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2001, for 
     activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to 
     structures pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall 
     be derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

                    General Services Administration


                    Consumer Information Center Fund

       For necessary expenses of the Consumer Information Center, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $2,622,000, 
     to be deposited into the Consumer Information Center Fund: 
     Provided, That the appropriations, revenues and collections 
     deposited into the fund shall be available for necessary 
     expenses of Consumer Information Center activities in the 
     aggregate amount of $7,500,000. Appropriations, revenues, and 
     collections accruing to this fund during fiscal year 2000 in

[[Page H8021]]

     excess of $7,500,000 shall remain in the fund and shall not 
     be available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                           Human Space Flight

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of human space flight research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, and services; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including repair, rehabilitation, and modification 
     of real and personal property, and acquisition or 
     condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; space 
     flight, spacecraft control and communications activities 
     including operations, production, and services; and purchase, 
     lease, charter, maintenance and operation of mission and 
     administrative aircraft, $5,388,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2001.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. LaTourette

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. 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 No. 1 offered by Mr. LaTourette:
       In the matter relating to ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; human space flight'', after the dollar 
     amount, insert ``(reduced by $67,986,000)''.
       In the matter relating to ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; science, aeronautics and technology'', after 
     the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $67,986,000)''.

  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my 
good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) from the west side 
of Cleveland, and also I think we will hear from the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones of Ohio) of Cleveland.
  I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) the 
VA-HUD subcommittee chairman, also the work of two great Ohioans on 
that committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula) for their hard work on this bill.
  I understand and support the fiscally responsible attitude underlying 
the committee's recommendation, but I believe that the specific cuts 
disregard the public enthusiasm for NASA funding.
  Much like the amendments offered yesterday by my colleague the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), the purpose of this amendment is 
to restore funding to the NASA administration relating to science, 
aeronautics, and space administration.
  This amendment, however, differs from the one that we voted on 
yesterday in that it recognizes the difficult tasks that our 
appropriators face working within current budget restraints and 
constraints and honors the overall funding level that they have 
provided NASA in the bill.
  Our amendment's increase and offset are both provided for within 
NASA's funding, reflecting the importance of fully funding the 
aeronautics administration without affecting the money appropriators 
have directed to other agencies, including Veterans.
  The work that is done, specifically in Northeastern Ohio at NASA 
Glenn Research Center, is important not only to the people of 
Northeastern Ohio but to the entire country as the world leader in the 
highly competitive aviation market.
  NASA Glenn has been and is an international leader in avionics and 
jet engine research since 1941. The Glenn Research Center also has 
expertise in advanced space propulsion and space power systems 
including the electrical power solar rays for the International Space 
Station, combustion research, aircraft engine noise and emissions 
reduction, chemical and electric rocket propulsion, and advanced 
turbojet aircraft engines.
  The Glenn Research Center has received 74 R&D 100 Awards, more than 
all other NASA centers combined. This proposed increase of $67,986,000 
will help maintain core competency programs in aeronautics. Many NASA 
research programs have impacted and will impact the lives of all 
individual citizens.
  For example, innovations in the ultra efficient engine technology 
seek to develop quieter airplanes in anticipation of increased airport 
congestion in many of our major cities in the United States.
  A critical mass of talented people, Mr. Chairman, and scientific 
resources will be irrevocably damaged in Ohio and elsewhere if the 
downward swing for funding levels in aerospace programs continues.
  The partnerships which emerged between industry and NASA have enabled 
American products to dominate leading-edge technologies. But funding 
for aeronautical research has received sharp decreases by almost 50 
percent in the last decade.
  Continued slashing of funding jeopardizes the development of vital 
technologies to thrust America forward in the world aviation market.
  Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of my remarks, and I think I will be 
joined on the floor by my colleagues from Ohio, I see the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will be here in a minute to take time on this 
his own behalf, I will be asking unanimous consent, if the subcommittee 
chairman is kind enough to yield me time, to withdraw this amendment 
and not have a vote on it.
  I do want to emphasize, however, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the majority whip, in published remarks has indicated that he 
intends when this matter moves forward to conference with the other 
body to fight hard to make sure that the funding levels of NASA are 
restored.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his 
patience. I know he has a lot to do on this bill. I fully appreciate 
the challenge that he and other members of the Committee on 
Appropriations are faced with as they try to do their work while 
honoring our commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  I daresay that he and his colleagues on the committee have jobs quite 
unlike those of appropriators of years past. But I believe strongly in 
the need to fully fund NASA's Science, Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, as I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) does.
  As the amendments offered yesterday indicate, if my colleagues look 
at the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), 
185 Members of this House joined the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rogan) with the need to increase funding for this level of program. His 
offsets came from the EPA environmental programs.
  Again, we do not move money from account to account, but we would 
like this amendment to serve as a bookmark; and I urge the subcommittee 
chair, which I know he knows the importance of this funding to not only 
Northeastern Ohio but to the entire area.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his work and his support on 
the concerns which we have for the NASA Glenn Research Center in the 
Greater Cleveland area.
  I want to say that people in that community certainly know that we 
have a bipartisan coalition working together on behalf of that Center.
  The budget in the bill for NASA currently before the House represents 
about a $1 billion cut, or cut of 10 percent from current funding. The 
LaTourette amendment would effectively restore $68 million for 
important programs for NASA's science, aeronautics, and technology. 
This increased funding would benefit NASA research centers, projects, 
and American jobs.
  NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin, has said that if the 10-percent cut 
in this legislation becomes a reality, then one or more NASA centers 
could be closed and significant layoffs in the existing workforce would 
be likely.
  What a terrible loss to American business and consumers that these 
cuts closed centers like NASA Glenn Research. NASA Glenn is one of the 
most important sources of technological innovations and advancement.
  For example, NASA Glenn has produced the de-icing system used on 
every small commercial aircraft, thus enhancing passenger safety. NASA 
Glenn has developed the coating for scratch resistant eyeglasses used 
by millions of people who wear glasses. NASA Glenn developed artificial 
hip joints. NASA Glenn developed fire-resistant fabrics. And NASA Glenn 
is

[[Page H8022]]

now developing aircraft engines that use less fuel, release fewer 
pollutants, and generate less noise.
  Clearly, American consumers stand to benefit from continued NASA 
Glenn research and activity. So does American business.
  For instance, NASA Glenn has helped a Cleveland electronic 
manufacturer demonstrate the capabilities of its antenna enabling it to 
win a contract with a German automobile manufacturer. NASA Glenn helped 
an American vacuum manufacturer improve its products by reducing noise 
associated with its fans by using sophisticated computer software that 
was developed for jet engines.
  NASA Glenn helps the American satellite industry with developing 
cutting-edge communications electronics. NASA Glenn helps the aerospace 
industry with improved jet engines. And NASA Glenn has advanced 
important microgravity experiments.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I support increasing 
funding for NASA science, research, and technology that could be used 
for activities at various research centers nationwide, including NASA 
Glenn, where more than 2,000 employees work for a better present and a 
better future.
  The funding for NASA's science, research, and technology promises to 
yield innovation and major advancements that will make possible a high-
technology economy for a long-term future. We must focus on our long-
term priorities. These priorities must include the future of American 
workers with advanced training who deserve high-paying jobs. They must 
include the future of the American economy.
  Let us demonstrate our commitment to the advancement of science and 
technology. Let us demonstrate our commitment to American workers 
nationwide. Let us demonstrate our commitment to American consumers and 
businesses and an expanding economy. And let us demonstrate our 
commitment and appreciation of NASA.
  I also want to thank the scientists the engineers and the support 
personnel at NASA Glenn for the work that they do, because they are 
truly serving our country and it is only right that their 
representatives stand in defense of their work and in appreciation of 
the work that they do every day for this country and for NASA Glenn.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that both gentlemen from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich) and (Mr. LaTourette) have offered this amendment. I 
understand their concerns. As we discussed yesterday, there were many 
very difficult decisions to be made, but I must reluctantly oppose the 
amendment.
  I would like to support the additional funding for science, 
aeronautics and technology; but I cannot do so at the expense of the 
space station or the shuttle. We all recognize the important work that 
is done at the Glenn Research Center, and I pledge to do all that I can 
when we get to the conference on this bill to restore funding to ensure 
the center can continue its work.
  The problems with funding for the Glenn Research Center should not be 
solved by creating other problems elsewhere for NASA. A reduction of 
this magnitude to either the shuttle program or the station program 
would cause significant problems. If the funding reduction were taken 
against the shuttle program, safety and reliability upgrades would have 
to be deferred. If the funding reduction were taken against the space 
station, NASA would have to defer development of the crew return 
vehicle or any one of the numerous other efforts under way to ensure 
timely completion of the station.
  There are no easy choices in this bill, but I do pledge to work with 
the gentlemen from Ohio to address these concerns with regard to the 
Glenn Research Center, but I must oppose the amendment because it 
creates more problems than it solves.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for yielding. I also appreciate 
very much his remarks; and as I indicated during my 5 minutes, the 
majority whip has also indicated his support, and I am sure that 
everybody on our side and the other side recognizes the difficulty that 
the chairman was placed under, and we accept the pledge that we are 
going to figure our way out of this in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to 
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the chairman for 
their concern over this, and we really need support on this and we are 
going to do everything we can. I want the people to know we are going 
to do everything we can to try to resolve this.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield under his 
reservation, both gentlemen should know this is a major concern to the 
subcommittee also.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and also the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. Chairman, at the full Committee on Appropriations markup, I spoke 
on the issue of NOx, although I did not offer an amendment on the 
subject. I addressed what I felt was an apparent inequity created by 
two separate and conflicting actions that occurred last May. One was 
EPA issuing a final rule implementing a consent decree under section 
126 of the Clean Air Act that is triggered in essence by EPA not 
approving the NOx SIP Call provisions of 22 States and the District of 
Columbia by November 30, 1999. The other was by the United States Court 
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in issuing an order staying the 
requirement imposed in EPA's 1998 NOx SIP Call for these jurisdictions 
to submit the SIP revisions just mentioned for EPA approval.
  Caught in the middle of these two events are electric utilities and 
industrial sources who fear that now the trigger will be sprung next 
November 30, even though the States are no longer required to make 
those SIP revisions because of the stay, and even though EPA will have 
nothing before it to approve or disapprove.
  Prior to this, EPA maintained a close link between the NOx SIP Call 
and the section 126 rule, as evidenced by the consent decree.
  My proposal was to apply a parallel stay. It would have simply 
prevented EPA from implementing the NOx regulations through the back-
door until the litigation is complete.
  I believe such a stay is needed, because even though EPA said only a 
few months ago that the principles of State discretion embodied in the 
Clean Air Act require that States first address any interstate ozone 
transport problems through State implementation plans submitted in 
response to the NOx SIP Call rule, I understand that EPA is now 
suggesting it may reverse its interpretation of this act, forcing 
businesses to comply with EPA's federal emission controls under section 
126 without regard to NOx SIP Call rule and State input.
  This proposed reversal is creating confusion for the businesses and 
States. Under EPA's proposed new position, businesses could incur 
substantial costs in meeting the EPA-imposed section 126 emission 
controls before allowing the States to use their discretion in the SIP 
process to address air quality problems, less stringent controls or 
through controls on other facilities altogether.
  Indeed, the fact that these businesses almost certainly will have 
sunk significant costs into compliance with the EPA-imposed controls 
before States are required to submit their emission control plans in 
response to the NOx SIP Call rule would result in impermissible 
pressure on their States to forfeit their discretion and instead simply 
conform their State Implementation Plans or SIPs to EPA section 126 
controls.

[[Page H8023]]

  While I think such an amendment is needed, I recognize the concerns 
of my good friends and agree not to offer it. Nevertheless, I believe 
that if EPA proceeds on its present course, we will have an untenable 
situation that EPA could avoid if it has a mind to do so.
  In summary, the two independent actions in May, EPA's issuance of a 
final rule implementing the consent decree and number two the court 
stay of the NOx rule, need to be addressed.
  Therefore, I ask my distinguished colleagues if they would agree with 
me that EPA should find a reasonable way to avoid triggering the 126 
process while the courts deliberate.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), my friend, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman bringing this to 
the House's attention, the apparent dilemma created by these two events 
both occurred in May. I recognize, of course, the concern for my State, 
New York, that this matter be resolved swiftly and real remedies be 
adopted. I would encourage and expect the EPA to, over the next several 
months, find a way that is fair to all sides and recognize that the 
States should be the one to control the air pollution problems and not 
have them addressed by the sources therein without State input through 
the SIP process.
  I, therefore, will work with the gentleman to see that EPA is fully 
responsive to these legitimate problems.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) knows, I share his concerns on this matter. I would agree 
that EPA's apparent decoupling of the section 126 petitions from the 
NOx SIP Call is causing major confusion to industry and State 
regulators alike, particularly in my State of West Virginia. I join him 
in his strong encouragement that EPA work with all parties involved in 
this situation to find a fair resolution, and I look forward to working 
with him and the chairman and EPA and the industries in this regard.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to join in that colloquy 
with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a distinguished member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his cooperation on this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, in the bill, we have granted some additional funding to 
the National Credit Union Administration for its revolving loan fund 
for low income credit unions, and I thank the chairman for his 
leadership and consideration.
  The purpose of the revolving loan fund is to make low interest loans 
to credit unions that serve primarily low income populations, and the 
earnings from the fund are used for technical assistance grants to low 
income credit unions so we really can help people become bankable.
  Mr. WALSH. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to emphasize then that when such technical 
assistance is made available to credit unions, the National Credit 
Union Administration should make every effort to ensure that such 
assistance is provided in a manner that is sensitive to the particular 
needs of the given credit union and considers the technical 
sophistication and background of the credit union's board and 
management.
  Specifically, the National Credit Union Administration should 
recognize the unique circumstances of community development credit 
unions as opposed to all other credit unions and assure that specific 
technical staff is designated and trained to provide appropriate 
assistance to community development credit unions which primarily serve 
low income communities which are a unique subset of all credit unions.
  Mr. WALSH. The gentlewoman's suggestion is an excellent one, and it 
is clearly consistent with the intent of the subcommittee's action 
today.
  Ms. KAPTUR. In addition to formal technical assistance funded by the 
interest earned on community development revolving loan fund loans, 
occasionally the National Credit Union Administration examiners will 
assist a small or a troubled credit union with some aspect of 
operations as part of the regular examination process.
  I also want to urge the National Credit Union Administration, when 
providing such assistance, to ensure that staff take special care to 
act in ways that respect and honor the dedication of a credit union's 
board and managers.
  Mr. WALSH. Once again, the gentlewoman from Ohio makes an excellent 
point, and I would urge the NCUA to heed her advice.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank again the chairman for all of his work on 
this bill, which is not an easy bill to move through this Chamber with 
all the respective departments and agencies, and for his special 
consideration on this particular subset of credit unions, largely 
serving communities where all other financial institutions have moved 
out.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her 
dedication to the committee and to this issue of credit unions, where 
she has been a leader.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies concerning the 
current level of funding for veterans medical care on H.R. 2684.
  Mr. Chairman, I am most thankful for the good work of the Members of 
the House Committee on Appropriations for bringing to the floor a bill 
with a $1.7 billion increase in spending for veterans medical care. 
This is the largest increase ever and would not have been possible 
without the hard work of the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD 
and Independent Agencies chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Unfortunately, despite this increase, lower New York and northern New 
Jersey could receive $40 million less than last year. According to the 
VISN 3 director, our network faces an estimated $125 million deficit 
due to inflation, VA's funding methodology and an increased demand for 
services, especially hepatitis C treatment.
  The staff in VISN 3 have worked hard to identify cost savings and 
efficiencies, reduced its workforce and streamlined operations to work 
within the funding levels dictated by VA's methodology. Now, after 
squeezing every available dollar from the system, the VISN 3 director 
tells us we are at the point where veteran medical care, quality and 
access is at risk if he is forced to make any additional cuts in fiscal 
year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to get assurances that the Subcommittee on 
VA, HUD and Independent Agencies chairman will examine the distribution 
of funds to ensure that all regions of the country have the resources 
to provide quality health care for all of our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing these 
important points to the committee's attention today, and I also would 
like to congratulate her and thank her for the leadership that she has 
provided on veterans issues. Veterans issues are constantly before her 
attention, and she makes very solid arguments in defense of and in 
support of veterans health.

[[Page H8024]]

  I, too, as a member of the New York delegation am well aware of the 
problems in VISN 3. Under this funding level, we have opportunities to 
address those issues.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly), in entering into a colloquy with the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies chairman, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), concerning the current level of 
funding for veterans health care in H.R. 2684; and I want to commend 
the chairman and the other Members of the House Committee on 
Appropriations for their significant efforts to secure an additional 
$1.7 billion over the President's request for veterans medical care.
  Regrettably, this historic increase in funding will do nothing to 
help meet the needs of our veterans in lower New York and northern New 
Jersey. The implementation of the Veterans Equity Resource Allocation 
system, known as VERA, some 3 years ago has led to over $120 million 
being taken away from the operating budget of our area, VISN 3.
  To date, the VISN director and his staff have worked hard to trim the 
fat in their budget while assuring our offices they would notify us 
when further cuts would negatively impact care.
  VISN 3 has now reached that point. Since 1997, the VA hospitals in my 
district at Castle Point and Montrose have had their budgets cut by 
$7.3 million. Since 1995, these hospitals have lost some 549 employees, 
a decrease of some 25 percent, the equivalent of an entire hospital.

  At the same time, medical inflation has raised pharmacy costs for the 
VISN by 16 percent. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) has 
noted the financial shortfall facing VISN 3. This shortfall will have a 
very real impact, a severe impact, on the quality of care being 
delivered to a veterans population that is older, less mobile, and in 
more need of specialized care than its counterparts in other VISNs.
  Accordingly, I respectfully request the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), to carefully review the 
distribution of medical care funds to ensure that the veterans of VISN 
3 are not going to be denied the quality of care that their service to 
their Nation has earned for them.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank my colleague from New York for his dedication to 
this issue, as he has provided leadership on this issue and so many 
others.
  I assure him I will keep a close watch on the funding challenges for 
VISN 3.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Kelly) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by complimenting the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies for his outstanding 
work on housing and a number of different issues that we work closely 
on. As the chairman knows, we have and I have had a particular concern 
about the overall level of funding for veterans programs, and veterans 
health programs in particular, throughout this appropriations process.
  As submitted by the President, the funding level for this account in 
the President's budget would have resulted in dramatic reductions.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Kelly was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LAZIO. The President's budget, as we all know, would have 
resulted in dramatic reductions in health care services for many parts 
of the country.
  I have met with constituents in many different areas of New York 
State who rely on this for their primary health care. I have heard the 
struggles that they have had in times of declining resources.
  I appreciate, perhaps as much as anybody in this House, the 
leadership that the chairman has shown in crafting the bill that now 
contains the largest increase in veterans medical care in 20 years.
  I am concerned, however, to learn that the veterans in my district 
may not share in this historic increase. Of the $1.7 billion increase, 
veterans in my region may receive as little as $6 million over FY 1999.
  The North Port Medical Center, which supports veterans from my 
district and throughout Long Island, may still have a shortfall of 
millions of dollars. This shortfall would be the third consecutive year 
for reductions to this VISN, compounding the health care concerns of my 
constituents who have already experienced it with an increasing demand 
on services like treatment for hepatitis C and long-term health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill was intended to provide sufficient 
funding for all regions of the country to avoid cuts in services to 
veterans. I would like to get the assurances of the Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies chairman, my distinguished friend, that in 
the face of this historic increase in funding all VISNs will have 
sufficient resources to provide quality health care, and in particular 
the North Port facility in Long Island.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his comments regarding our 
efforts on the bills in general, and I would like to commend him for 
the leadership that he has provided and the dedication he has shown to 
veterans and his congressional district and all over New York State.
  I appreciate the efforts of all of my colleagues in New York and 
northern New Jersey in increasing the amount of funding available for 
veterans health care, and will continue to work with the gentleman and 
our colleagues in the Senate and the administration to ensure VISN 3 
will have the resources to ensure that the level of services and care 
for veterans in New York and New Jersey are not reduced as a result of 
this bill, including distribution of reserve funds.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, we all appreciate the committee's efforts 
on that and look forward to continuing our work, Mr. Chairman. We would 
like to have the chairman's assurances that he will continue in the 
future to work with us on this allocation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Walsh, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Kelly was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I stand ready to work with all Members to 
assure that each VISN receives sufficient funding.
  Mrs. KELLY. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), and the committee for their continued efforts on behalf of 
our veterans and look forward to working with them to ensure the proper 
medical care for all veterans in the Nation. We thank the gentleman so 
much for his hard work.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy.
  Mr. WALSH. I would be happy to join the gentlewoman in a colloquy.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership efforts on this most important 
effort.
  As we have been made aware, I have some concerns about the bill. 
First and foremost among those concerns is the omission of the funding 
for the new surgical suite and post-anesthesia care unit in the Kansas 
City Veterans Affairs Medical Center in my district.
  This medical center serves a growing population of almost 200,000 
veterans in the Kansas City area, as well as referrals from 15 other 
medical centers from the four-state region. Those veterans are 
currently being served by an underfunded and undersized and 
deteriorating 50-year-old surgical facility, where corridors are used 
to store equipment; operating rooms are used for preoperative care; and 
backlogs extend as long as 24 weeks.

[[Page H8025]]

  In these appalling conditions, veterans are wheeled down crowded 
corridors from surgical room to holding areas to post-operative care in 
plain view of their loving families. Veterans are waiting between 2 and 
6 months for critical medical procedures ranging from hip replacement 
to neurosurgery.
  In my letter to the chairman dated August 30, I explained that the 
new 31,000 square foot medical facility will eliminate these flaws by 
imposing both the quality and the access to medical attention. The 
project will reduce operating room turnover time from 45 minutes to 15 
minutes, thus allowing 325 more cases to be performed each year.

                              {time}  1345

  The addition of holding rooms will also reduce scheduling backlogs, 
thus enabling 200 additional procedures per year.
  This facility was listed by the Department of Veterans Affairs as the 
single most important construction project in the entire country. To 
disregard that judgment contradicts their unique expertise and 
effectively shuts our eyes and ears to the health care needs of this 
country's proud veterans. I think I can speak for the entire region 
when I say we must provide quality medical care for our veterans, and 
more than that, we must be guided by our veterans as we do so.
  Every Member of this Chamber is painfully aware of funding 
limitations, but I would request of them that every effort be made in 
the conference committee to restore funding to this vitally important 
provision.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and 
for her concern and her advocacy for this important project. We faced 
some extremely difficult decisions when working with our allocation. We 
agree that the surgical suite project at Kansas City Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center is a meritorious project worthy of funding. 
Unfortunately, money was tight. We chose two projects that already had 
prior year funding to complete them.
  As we move to conference, I assure my colleague from Missouri (Ms. 
McCarthy) that we will make every effort to fund this important 
project.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership.


             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 79, line 5, insert ``(increased by $250,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 79, line 19, insert ``(increased by $449,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 80, line 14, insert ``(increased by $225,600,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment along 
with my colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson).
  After yesterday's debate on the floor of the House specifically 
relating to the funding of NASA, a number of amendments that have been 
offered by my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to add more 
dollars to the massive funding and most of whom or all of which failed, 
I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, to in fact restore the full 
funding to 924,600,000, the amount of moneys, almost a billion dollars, 
that was cut from NASA. This is with the understanding and appreciation 
of the leadership of the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), and the kind words that they have already said to me along with 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) on their viewpoints 
about NASA and the efforts along with some of the other concerns 
colleagues have expressed as we move toward conference. But I thought 
that the reduction of almost a billion dollars was so devastating that 
it was simply important to make the record for the American people that 
this basically halts, if my colleagues will, the American space program 
of which I believe over the years we have gleaned and garnered the 
commitment, the support, and the appreciation of the American people.
  If I take, for example, the Johnson Space Center in Houston which 
provides work for over 15,000 people, a work force consisting of 3,000 
NASA Federal service employees and 12,000 contractor employees, NASA 
predicted the effects of the cuts on the Johnson Space Center, and that 
picture is not pleasant. NASA predicts that an estimated 100 
contractors would have to be laid off, contractors composed of many 
employees and workers. Clinic operations, would be reduced. Public 
affairs, community outreach would be drastically reduced. Also NASA 
would likely institute a 21-day furlough to offset the effects of the 
cuts.
  I just recently met with and visited with some of those who are 
members of the Machinists Union, individuals who work and saw the nuts 
and bolts of what is going on at NASA Johnson. They would be 
drastically impacted. The hundred million dollar reduction in the 
International Space Station would be attributed to the space center and 
would cause reductions in the crew return vehicle program. This would 
result in a 1- to 2-year production slip and would require America to 
completely rely upon Russia for crew returns.
  This is not only a Johnson Space Center issue. NASA Goddard Space 
Flight Center would maybe cut over 2,500 jobs. Such layoffs would 
affect both Maryland and Virginia. The hundred million dollar reduction 
in NASA's research and development would result in an immediate 
reduction in the work force of 1,100 employees for FY 2001. This would 
also require a hiring freeze, and NASA would not be able to maintain 
the necessary skills to implement future NASA missions.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen some of the exciting efforts that NASA has 
engaged in over the past months. The journey of John Glenn that tested 
and did research on the aging process, the leadership of Eileen Collins 
who commanded one of the recent shuttles, the docking of the Discovery 
with Russian Mir, and we also realized that Russian Mir is to be 
retired and the International Space Station is to be the leader of 
research in space that will deal with strokes, and high blood pressure, 
diabetes, HIV/AIDS.
  This $924 million cut, almost a billion dollars, warrants this 
extreme measure that I am offering today which is to restore those 
funds. It calls upon this Congress and this House and this subcommittee 
to waive the point of order and to allow us to proceed and restore NASA 
to where it was. This is not a request for additional funds. This is 
not a request to in any way put NASA above some of the other concerns 
of Members. It is a request to, if my colleagues will, keep our 
commitment to NASA where we indicated there would be even funding for 
the last 5 years of the 13 approximately point 5 billion dollars.
  What we are saying is that this cut of almost a billion dollars 
literally stops NASA in its tracks. It literally says, ``If you're 
building a bridge, you have stopped the building of that bridge, and 
you've caused everyone traveling on that bridge to fall off into the 
deep waters.'' I would ask my colleagues to realize as well that NASA 
has been one of the leanest, and I will not say meanest, agencies who 
has offered to cut itself willingly. In fact, it has cut itself $35 
billion, and that has resulted in $35 billion in savings.
  As I close, Mr. Chairman, let me simply ask that we have an 
opportunity to vote on this amendment and restore full funding to NASA 
for this budget year.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my colleagues, 
Representatives Bart Gordon, Gene Green and Nick Lampson to satisfy the 
NASA appropriations request, raising the Appropriations Committee's 
recommendation by $924,600,000.
  I have not offered any offsets because this bill is so flawed, we 
cannot provide offsets without impinging upon other vitally important 
budget items. It is my hope that my colleagues will realize that it is 
necessary to waive any point of order so we can fund this very 
significant agency. We must remain united against this poorly drafted 
bill.
  Recently, the movie ``October Sky'' captured our imaginations. This 
movie, based upon the autobiographical book written by Homer Hickam, 
tells the tale of a young boy who dreams of building rockets. Hickam 
grew up in a blue-collar town in West Virginia, yet, he believed in his 
abilities. He believed that he could build rockets that would torch the 
sky. And ladies and gentlemen, he succeeded. His

[[Page H8026]]

rockets won him national acclaim, and he eventually became a NASA 
engineer.
  This bill would take such a dream and crush it beneath the weight of 
political posturing. This bill would tell our children, ``Forget about 
space. You will never reach it.''
  And our children's dreams are not the only casualties. 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.
  NASA has predicted the effects of the cuts on the Johnson Space 
Center, and the picture is not pleasant. NASA predicts that an 
estimated 100 contractors would have to be laid off, contractors 
composed of many employees and workers; clinic operations would be 
reduced; and public affairs, particularly community outreach, would be 
drastically reduced. Also, NASA would likely institute a 21 day 
furlough to offset the effects of the cuts, and this furlough will 
place many families in dire straits. Also, the Johnson Space Center 
would have to eliminate its employee Safety and Total Health program.
  The entire $100 million reduction in the International Space Station 
would be attributed to the space center and would cause reductions in 
the Crew Return Vehicle program. This would result in a 1 to 2 year 
production slip and would require America to completely rely upon 
Russia for crew returns. This is a humiliating situation! We pride 
ourselves in being the world leader in space exploration, yet, what 
does it tell our international neighbors when we do not even have 
enough funding to bring our astronauts home?
  The cuts would not only affect Houston; they would affect the rest of 
the country. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center would need to cut over 
2,500 jobs. Such layoffs would affect both Maryland and Virginia.
  The $100 million reduction in NASA's research and development would 
result in an immediate reduction in the workforce of 1,100 employees 
for FY 2001. This would also require a hiring freeze, and NASA would 
not be able to maintain the necessary skills to implement future NASA 
missions.
  Negative effects will also occur across our Nation. Clearly, States 
such as Texas, Florida, and Alabama will see substantial cuts to the 
workforce, but given today's widespread interstate commerce, it is easy 
to imagine that these cuts to the NASA program will hit home throughout 
America. And NASA warns that the country may not see the total effects 
of this devastation to our country's future scientists and engineers 
for many years.
  NASA contractors and employees represent both big and small 
businesses, and their very livelihoods are at stake--especially those 
in small business. They can ill afford the flood of layoffs that would 
certainly result from this bill.
  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 gentlemen, 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.

  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.
  Over the past six years, NASA has led the Federal Government in 
streamlining the Agency's budget and institution, resulting in 
approximately $35 billion in budget savings relative to earlier outyear 
estimates. During the same period, NASA reinvented itself, reducing 
personnel by almost \1/3\, while continuing to increase productivity. 
The massive cuts recommended by the Committee would destroy the balance 
in the civil space program that has been achieved between science and 
human space flight in recent years.
  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.
  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 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Houston, Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) bringing her amendment. Service on the Committee on 
Science, I think points out the need for this.
  I have a district in Houston. It does not come close to the Johnson 
Space Center, but I also know the benefits that we all receive, even if 
we do not represent that particular area from both NASA and the science 
investment that NASA is doing and also the International Space Station. 
I appreciate the Committee on Appropriations adding the 400 additional 
million for NASA, however it still falls about a billion dollars short 
of what NASA needs to be an effective agency and to continue to be 
literally the world leader in preeminent space program. U.S. space 
program is the envy of the world, and I know a lot of Members get to 
visit with other countries, and oftentimes that will be sometimes the 
first issue they will talk about is the space program. The continued 
success of programs like the Mars Lander or the Hubble Telescope should 
not be halted because of shortsighted funds.

                              {time}  1400

  We are just beginning to understand this great huge universe that we 
have, and missions to search for water on the moon or to find life on 
Mars is what is keeping our Nation's technology and academic 
advancements going.
  For the past few years I have had the opportunity, though, to have 
astronauts visit in the schools in my district. They will come in to 
our middle schools and talk about what they do and their job to 
encourage students to continue efforts or have an interest in math and 
science.

[[Page H8027]]

  So we are not just talking about dollars and cents when we are 
talking about the NASA budget. We are talking about the impact of 
having an astronaut or a contractor who works with NASA come to our 
schools and make our students realize how important it is to have math 
and science. Maybe we would have more math and science majors than 
lawyers, Mr. Chairman. Since I am a lawyer and was not good in math and 
science, maybe I needed an astronaut when I was in the seventh or 
eighth grade to convince me of that.
  The proposed cuts would eliminate a host of technology and research 
programs, and particularly at the Johnson Space Center in Houston in 
their research in astro materials such as extraterrestrial water that 
was trapped in crystals from outer space that just recently landed in 
West Texas, a meteor.
  The proposed cuts would scuttle any progress on the Mars exploration. 
Even though the Mars exploration is being done literally on the cheap 
right now, this would make it even worse.
  Space exploration is important and plays a critical role in our 
Nation's future, and I would hope that we would be able to, if not in 
this amendment today, then through the conference committee, restore 
the funding to NASA, because they have adopted a pretty good lean 
machine the last 3 or 4 years under Dan Goldin, and I think we ought to 
continue that success.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for his support in joining me in offering this amendment. One of the 
things I think Americans understand is when you tighten your belt 
yourself, and you just mentioned NASA has done that. But what we lose 
as well, and I know it impacts the gentleman's district, is an enormous 
number of jobs.
  I do not know if the gentleman wants to further comment on that, but 
we already know there will be furloughs. We know that working men and 
women, people who are just blue collar workers, will lose their jobs, 
as well as our scientists and researchers.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my colleague is 
correct, although Mr. Chairman, I have to be honest, when somebody in 
my district that is a blue collar worker gets a job at Johnson Space 
Center, they move to the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson) or the district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) or the 
district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). They do not stay 
typically in my district in the inner-city. But it is important to 
those blue collar workers. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I hope when we do 
go to conference committee, that that funding will be restored.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Does the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I do insist on my point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the amendment because 
it violates the rules of the House since it calls for an en bloc 
consideration of two different paragraphs of the bill. Precedents of 
the House are clear on this matter. Amendments to a paragraph or 
section are not in order until such paragraph or section has been read.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would appreciate it very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, can I inquire whether or not I can yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) on the point of order, or 
can he be heard on the point of order, the ranking member?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall) be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I just want to point out the great 
need and the devastation that will occur if this is not carried. I want 
to point out some of the background.
  Back in the early nineties there was a great effort made at the time 
when we had projected continued deficits that we would have cutbacks, 
and they called on all of the committees to cut back anywhere from 5 to 
10 to 15 percent.
  Well, space particularly and the NASA program, it is hard to cut back 
when you do not really know the effect of what you are doing. So with 
the help of the then ranking minority Member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), I as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Space and Aeronautics called in Mr. Goldin and told him what our 
problem was.
  We said, You can cut it with a surgeon's knife or we will cut the 
budget with a baseball bat, and it makes more sense to do it by someone 
like you, because when we cut the budget, we are always frightful we 
are going to cause loss of life or cut it in some life-threatening 
area.
  Well, the thing I want to report to you is in the early nineties the 
projected spending for NASA was some $18 billion, and the 
reorganization and streamlining that took place at that time reduced it 
some 30 percent. So we have already taken hard licks in the NASA 
budget, hard licks in the space program, and really and truly by 
keeping the faith now we really do suffer from the cut that is proposed 
at this time.
  I urge a reconsideration of this. I totally support the gentlewoman 
from Houston and those from other parts that support NASA. I do not 
doubt that you on that side support NASA and want the best for the 
program. I just urge you to reconsider and to give us some help 
somewhere along the line, whether it is at the level of the House and 
Senate conference committee or wherever it might be, to reconsider 
this.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) insist on his point of order for the reasons stated?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on the point of order. I would 
offer to the gentleman and gentlewoman that spoke the comments I made 
throughout the debate on this bill, that we understand your concerns. 
We have those same concerns. The difficult choices made while producing 
this bill caused us to make these rather difficult cuts.
  As I have said, I will continue to work with all who have an interest 
in supporting this terribly important program, that as we work through 
the process and get to conference, we will try to fill those gaps as we 
go down the road.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that. I 
would like to point out that today the real dollar funding has gone 
down from the $14.4 billion to the $13.6 billion. At a time when they 
are projecting a $1 trillion savings in the next 10 years, this is no 
time to cut down our opportunity to really move ahead in the field of 
science.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues who 
have come to the floor. I said yesterday that this is a hard question 
of choices, and I realize I asked originally for the point of order to 
be waived.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, with the representation of the chairman 
and the good work of the ranking member, I would simply ask at this 
time, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment be withdrawn and that I would 
offer to work with the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking 
member of the full committee, the chairman of the full committee and 
the ranking member of the subcommittee on this very vital issue, not 
only to Texas, this is not a selfish position, but to the Nation. I 
wanted to call this America's space program, and I hope we will get 
NASA back to full funding soon, to save American jobs and to save 
America's space program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

[[Page H8028]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                  Science, Aeronautics and Technology

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, and services; maintenance; 
     construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     and modification of real and personal property, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications 
     activities including operations, production, and services; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $4,975,700,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2001.


                            Mission Support

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out mission support for human space flight programs 
     and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including 
     research operations and support; space communications 
     activities including operations, production and services; 
     maintenance; construction of facilities including repair, 
     rehabilitation, and modification of facilities, minor 
     construction of new facilities and additions to existing 
     facilities, facility planning and design, environmental 
     compliance and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation 
     of real property, as authorized by law; program management; 
     personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel 
     expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to 
     exceed $35,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement 
     only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $2,269,300,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2001.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $20,800,000.


                       Administrative Provisions

       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by 
     the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities 
     as authorized by law, such amount available for such activity 
     shall remain available until expended. This provision does 
     not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support'' 
     pursuant to the authorization for repair, rehabilitation and 
     modification of facilities, minor construction of new 
     facilities and additions to existing facilities, and facility 
     planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction 
     of facilities shall remain available until September 30, 
     2002.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of 
     Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for 
     personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2000 and may be used to enter 
     into contracts for training, investigations, costs associated 
     with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year.
       NASA shall develop a revised appropriation account 
     structure for submission in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
     request consisting of the ``Human Space Flight'' account; the 
     ``Science, Aeronautics, and Technology'' account; and the 
     ``Office of Inspector General'' account. The accounts shall 
     each include the planned full costs (direct and indirect 
     costs) of NASA's related activities and allow NASA to shift 
     civil service salaries, benefits and support among accounts, 
     as required, for the safe, timely, and successful 
     accomplishment of NASA missions.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       Central Liquidity Facility

        During fiscal year 2000, administrative expenses of the 
     Central Liquidity Facility shall not exceed $257,000: 
     Provided, That $1,000,000, together with amounts of principal 
     and interest on loans repaid, to be available until expended, 
     is available for loans to community development credit 
     unions.

                      National Science Foundation


                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and 
     the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 
     1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight 
     services for research support; acquisition of aircraft, 
     award-related travel, $2,778,500,000, of which not to exceed 
     $245,600,000 shall remain available until expended for Polar 
     research and operations support, and for reimbursement to 
     other Federal agencies for operational and science support 
     and logistical and other related activities for the United 
     States Antarctic program; the balance to remain available 
     until September 30, 2001: Provided, That receipts for 
     scientific support services and materials furnished by the 
     National Research Centers and other National Science 
     Foundation supported research facilities may be credited to 
     this appropriation: Provided further, That to the extent that 
     the amount appropriated is less than the total amount 
     authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.


                        Major Research Equipment

       For necessary expenses of major construction projects 
     pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as 
     amended, including award-related travel, $56,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                     Education and Human Resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, award-related travel, and rental 
     of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, 
     $660,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That to the extent that the amount of this 
     appropriation is less than the total amount authorized to be 
     appropriated for included program activities, all amounts, 
     including floors and ceilings, specified in the authorizing 
     Act for those program activities or their subactivities shall 
     be reduced proportionally.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; 
     reimbursement of the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; $146,500,000: Provided, That 
     contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses'' 
     in fiscal year 2000 for maintenance and operation of 
     facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the 
     next fiscal year.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $5,325,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation


          Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

       For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as 
     authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $80,000,000.

                        Selective Service System


                         Salaries and Expenses

       To carry out the orderly termination of the programs and 
     activities authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118, $7,000,000.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of 
     this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific 
     limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such 
     travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth 
     therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the 
     appropriations: Provided, That this provision does not apply 
     to accounts that do not contain an object classification for 
     travel: Provided further, That this section shall not apply 
     to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local 
     boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to 
     travel performed directly in connection with care and 
     treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with 
     major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the 
     President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel 
     performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection 
     with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency 
     motor pools where separately set forth in the budget 
     schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles 
     I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget 
     estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the 
     expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the 
     amounts therefore set forth in the estimates in the same 
     proportion.
       Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and

[[Page H8029]]

     facilities of Federal National Mortgage Association, 
     Government National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve 
     banks or any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any 
     insured bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
       Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made; or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department or agency 
     between their domicile and their place of employment, with 
     the exception of any officer or employee authorized such 
     transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
       Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used, 
     directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
     Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law, 
     or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection; and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within twenty-four months prior to the 
     date on which the list is made available to the public and of 
     all contracts on which performance has not been completed by 
     such date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall 
     be updated quarterly and shall include a narrative 
     description of the work to be performed under each such 
     contract.
       Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive 
     agency: (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in 
     full compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to 
     such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies, 
     analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency 
     which is substantially derived from or substantially includes 
     any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain 
     information concerning: (A) the contract pursuant to which 
     the report was prepared; and (B) the contractor who prepared 
     the report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of 
     30 days has expired following the date on which the report is 
     received by the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for 
     indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-21.
       Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2000 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the program, project, or 
     activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating 
     to risk assessment, the protection of private property 
     rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the 
     Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to each such 
     corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make 
     such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be 
     necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the 
     budget for 2000 for such corporation or agency except as 
     hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these 
     corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or 
     mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly 
     provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of 
     other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior 
     appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not 
     apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of 
     these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill, title IV, sections 401 through 419, be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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:

       Sec. 420. Notwithstanding section 320(g) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)), funds made 
     available pursuant to authorization under such section for 
     fiscal year 2000 may be used for implementing comprehensive 
     conservation and management plans.

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh).
  Mr. Chairman, I had intended to introduce an amendment, but have 
elected not to do so because the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Walsh) has agreed to engage in a colloquy with me, and I appreciate his 
willingness to do so.
  My amendment would have sought to extend for an additional year a 
provision that was included in the FY 1998 VA-HUD appropriation that 
states that the Federal share of grants awarded under title II of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act for publicly owned treatment works 
in the District of Columbia shall be 80 percent.
  Currently the matching formula for water treatment projects in the 
District of Columbia is 80-20 because of a measure included 2 years ago 
by the VA-HUD chairman, at the time the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis). I have spoken directly with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster), the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and he has indicated his support.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has already 
indicated his willingness to work with me in devising permanent 
language that could be included in a clean water funding bill that the 
committee intends to consider shortly. I also have the support of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for 
extending the provision.
  The 80-20 match has been indispensable to the District of Columbia 
Water and Sewer Authority in helping it to undertake necessary capital 
improvements. I intend to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) to obtain passage of legislation to make this change 
permanent.

[[Page H8030]]

 In the meantime, however, the provision that was passed 2 years ago is 
set to expire on December 30, 1999. Therefore, I must seek an 
additional 1-year extension so that important projects that WASA will 
be undertaking next year will not be jeopardized because of lack of 
funding.
  I would ask the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), I 
understand that you would like additional time to consider my request 
for a 1-year extension and that you would be amenable to working with 
me to have language included in the VA-HUD conference report. Is that 
the gentleman's understanding?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is my understanding. I recognize 
the importance of this provision to the District of Columbia, and I 
look very much forward to working with the gentlewoman in that regard.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his kind consideration.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 93, line 6: strike the period and insert the 
     following:
     ``, subject to enactment of legislation authorizing funds for 
     such purpose.''

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment to section 420 on page 93 
regards the usage of federal funds for comprehensive conservation and 
management plans for our national estuaries. That is a proper role for 
the Federal Government. All of us recognize that.
  The Clean Water Act allows EPA national estuary program grants to be 
used for developing plans, not for implementing them. Section 420 would 
allow these grants to be used for implementation for FY 2000.
  Section 420 constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. However, we have talked with the 
chairman and ranking member and advised them that the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure is currently considering legislation 
to reauthorize the national estuary program. We are determined to do 
so, and we are moving with dispatch.
  The proposed amendment would allow national estuary grants to be used 
for implementing plans, subject to passage of national estuary program 
reauthorization legislation.
  I would urge its adoption. I would ask my colleagues to keep in mind 
that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, are both 
supportive, and I would ask that they affirm that support at this time.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
the excellent work that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has 
done in my State and across the Nation in protecting our air, water, 
and land. He has provided great leadership, in the tradition of the 
great Theodore Roosevelt also from New York State.
  We see this as a friendly amendment, and I can say from our side that 
we are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the chairman for those good words.
  I would ask the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) also if 
that is his understanding.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that sections 421 
through 423 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The text of sections 421 through 423 is as follows:
       Sec. 421. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     term ``qualified student loan'' with respect to national 
     service education awards shall mean any loan made directly to 
     a student by the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary 
     Education, in addition to other meanings under section 
     148(b)(7) of the National and Community Service Act.
       Sec. 422. Section 15d(a) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
     Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831n-4(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``30,000,000,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``27,000,000,000''.
       Sec. 423. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to publish or issue an assessment required under 
     section 106 of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 
     unless--
       (1) the supporting research has been subjected to peer 
     review and, if not otherwise publicly available, posted 
     electronically for public comment prior to use in the 
     assessment; and
       (2) the draft assessment has been published in the Federal 
     Register for a 60 day public comment period.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  I rise today to discuss with the chairman of the subcommittee the 
need for a veterans outpatient clinic in the Seventh District of 
Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, currently there are 9 outpatient clinics located 
throughout Georgia. The Seventh District has one of the largest 
veterans population of any congressional district in the State. 
However, it does not have an outpatient clinic.
  In the State of Georgia there are more than 667,000 veterans, and the 
Seventh District is home to many of those. Many of the constituents in 
my congressional district are veterans who must drive long distances to 
receive treatment. In 1998, many thousands of veterans from the Seventh 
District had to go to the VA hospital facility on the east side of 
Atlanta to receive medical treatment. For those veterans in the 
western-most portion of the Seventh District, that trip takes a 
complete day, beginning early in the morning.
  Establishing an outpatient clinic in the Seventh Congressional 
District would provide a very important service to our veterans, and 
would relieve pressure from the other clinics and the veterans hospital 
in Atlanta. It would be extremely cost effective.
  Over the last year I have been in contact with the chairman about the 
importance of this issue, and I am pleased the committee will look into 
this issue in the House-Senate conference.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this issue 
to the attention of the Committee, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a need for a veterans' outpatient 
clinic in the 7th District of Georgia. I would like to assure the 
gentleman that I will work with him on this issue toward the 
establishment of a clinic in that county of Georgia as we move towards 
conference.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the 
chairman.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have heard stories like the gentleman's 
all over the country, I say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), 
about the needs of various districts and our veterans. They are real. I 
am glad that the gentleman is fighting for them.
  We had a series of amendments yesterday that would have put the money 
in that would have allowed us to take care of that. The illogic of the 
position that is being argued by folks on the gentleman's side is that 
we have these needs but we are not going to put the money in to meet 
them.
  So I sympathize with the gentleman and I voted to get the gentleman 
the money to have that outpatient clinic,

[[Page H8031]]

but nobody on the gentleman's side voted for the amendments that would 
have allowed that. So I do not understand how the gentleman can ask the 
chairman to take care of his needs and then not vote for the positions 
that would give the money to do that.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like 
to express my appreciation for the support of the gentleman from 
California.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       At the end of the bill before line 4, page 94, insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . Not withstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the amount appropriated for Environmental Programs and 
     Management for the Environmental Protection Agency is reduced 
     by $2,500,000 and the amount appropriated for Emergency 
     Management Planning and Assistance for the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency is increased by $2,500,000.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan (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 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution, the 
authorization bill, H.R. 1550, and the FEMA director, James Lee Witt, 
all suggested that a $5 million appropriation to the Fire 
Administration be authorized in order to implement certain changes in 
the Fire Administration.
  I would like to suggest to my colleagues that this is a compromise. 
The appropriators took out the $5 million. This amendment suggests that 
we move ahead with $2.5 million to implement these changes in the Fire 
Administration. The director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, has said at least 
with the $2.5 million they can move ahead and start making some changes 
necessary to help the first responders in this country.
  We have 34,000 fire departments in this country. We have had very 
little support from the Federal Government. It has been suggested that, 
after all, it is already in this appropriation bill. There is a 20 
percent increase in funding. The 20 percent is an increase from last 
year's $25 million to this year's $31 million, but they took out the $5 
million for this special project.
  Compare this authorization with what we have given law enforcement; 
for example, $1 billion for bulletproof vests in 1 year. What are we 
doing for our first responders? We make these first responders, 80 
percent of whom are volunteers, do without any kind of support. We are 
now challenged in every community, in every township, in every hamlet, 
in every village of continuing to encourage these volunteers to perform 
the kinds of public service that they have been performing. Let us make 
some changes, and let us start giving these men and women a little 
support from Washington, D.C.
  Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration has had a notable 
impact on communities across the country. Between 1986 and 1995, for 
example, fire deaths decreased 30 percent and the adjusted dollar 
losses associated with the fires decreased by 13 percent. Much of this 
decrease can be traced to research sponsored by the United States Fire 
Administration.
  Earlier I had mentioned $1 billion to law enforcement for deaths. 
Last year we had about 200 deaths of law enforcement officers 
performing their duties. Last year we had 100 deaths of first 
responders, firemen trying to do their duty, and again, 80 percent of 
those individuals are volunteers, with little or no support.
  We are talking about $2.5 billion. The $5 million was taken out. We 
are now talking about $2.5 million, at least starting down this road to 
help these first responders.
  Losses from fire, I would call to the Members' attention, remain 
unacceptably high. During the period 1986 to 1995 period, an average of 
2.1 million fires have been reported annually, and fires cost an 
average of 5,000 civilian deaths, 25,000 injuries, and $9.6 billion in 
losses each year.
  Moreover, the United States has one of the highest fire death rates 
in the industrialized world, 15.6 deaths per million in population, 
higher than Australia, Japan, western Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, we can and we must do better. I think this is a very 
modest request to move ahead with what needs to happen in the U.S. Fire 
Administration for them to do a better job servicing the 34,000 fire 
departments in our communities and the 1.2 million first responders 
that are trying to help their communities in protecting the 
environment, protecting from loss of life, protecting from loss of 
property.
  A recent report by the blue ribbon panel made up of representatives 
of the fire service community spoke of a broken covenant between the 
Federal fire programs and the people and institutions they were created 
to serve. They listed 34 recommendations to improve the United States 
Fire Administration. At the top of the list was additional funding. 
This is a serious and earnest effort on the part of these stakeholders 
to bring about a positive change for the Fire Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget, the attorneys team Bill H.R. 155, and FEMA 
Director James Lee Wolf all suggested a $5 million appropriation to 
implement certain changes. Since its creation in 1974, the Fire 
Administration has had a notable impact on communities cross the 
country. Between 1986 and 1995, for example, fire deaths decreased 30 
percent, and the adjusted dollar loss associated with fire decreased 13 
percent. Much of this decrease can be traced to research sponsored by 
USFA that led to affordable smoke detectors.
  Nevertheless, losses from fire remain unacceptably high. Over the 
same 1986 to 1995 period, an average of 2.1 million fires were reported 
annually, and fires caused an average of 5,100 civilians deaths, 25,000 
injuries, and $9.6 billion in losses each year. Moreover, the United 
States has one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized 
world--15.6 deaths per million in population--higher than in Australia, 
Japan, and most of Western Europe.
  Mr. Chairman, we can and must do better, both for our citizens and 
for the firefighters who regularly put their lives on the line--80 
percent of whom serve as volunteers. in an age where the word ``hero'' 
has been debased, firefighters still command the respect and thanks of 
the communities they serve, and rightly so. About 100 lose their lives 
every year in duty-related incidents.
  However, a recent report by the Blue Ribbon Panel, made up of 
representatives of the fire-services community, spoke of a ``broken 
covenant between the federal fire programs and the people and 
institutions they were created to serve.'' They listed 34 
recommendations to improve the United States Fire Administration. At 
the top of their list was additional funding. This is a serious and 
earnest effort on the part of these stakeholders to bring about 
positive change--to increase funding for the USFA while at the same 
time hold it accountable for its own performance.
  The authorization that we passed overwhelmingly in this House 
provided this funding.
  It also required the USFA to prepare a five-year plan on how the 
funding will be spent. It channeled new funding into the National Fire 
Academy for counterterrorism training for first responders and called 
for a review of National Fire Academy courses to ensure that they are 
up-to-date and complement, not duplicate, courses of instruction 
offered elsewhere.
  This amendment restores the $2.5 million out of the $5 million 
requested necessary to achieve these goals.
  It makes funding available to USFA through the FEMA ``Emergency 
Management Planning and Assistance'' account. It offsets this spending 
through a decrease in funding for the environmental protection Agency's 
``Environmental Programs and Management'' account--a $1.8 billion 
account filled with earmarked programs not requested by the EPA. As 
Chairman of the Basic Research Subcommittee, it's important to me that 
we spend money on projects that meet the standards of competition and 
peer-review.
  A sum of less than \2/10\ of one percent from this account is 
reasonable to help this country's first responders.
  Mr. Chairman, by funding the United States Fire Administration, this 
amendment has the potential of saving countless numbers of lives, 
significantly reducing physical injuries and decreasing the dollar 
amount of damages caused by fire and other forms of disasters. I would 
personally like to thank everyone from the fire service who has offered 
their support to me throughout this budget process. But more 
importantly, I would like to thank all 1.2 million first responders for 
their dedication and commitment to duty, and offer my best wishes for 
their continued success and safety.

[[Page H8032]]

  I ask for your support on this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this surely is a worthy program. There is broad support 
certainly for fire prevention training. That is why the Committee on 
Appropriations increased the budget of FEMA's fire prevention training 
by 20 percent.
  We have discussed and debated this bill for about 10 hours now, and 
we have seen clearly throughout the debate the difficult choices that 
we had. There is no other area, clearly, of this budget that has had a 
20 percent increase. So it is a priority for the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, the budget last year was about $25 million. This year 
it would be $31.4 million, under this budget, an increase of $6 
million, $6 million that could have been used in any number of other 
programs that any number of other amendments would have affected.
  FEMA had proposed an increase of over 45 percent for this budget 
item, but the committee could not support such an increase. The efforts 
of FEMA to overhaul and improve the United States Fire Administration 
are to be commended, but we should not smother the program with funding 
which may be not used effectively. How many times have we seen the 
Federal Government throw money at a problem, only to create more 
problems?
  This would be a substantial increase for any budget. We need to give 
the agency time to implement the recommendations of the blue ribbon 
panel on the U.S. Fire Administration. While FEMA requested more money 
than this bill provides, the committee feels that slowing down the pace 
of implementation will be best for the program in the long run.
  We remain committed to working with FEMA to implement changes in the 
Fire Administration, but we do not feel a funding increase of 45 
percent in one year is merited.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Just to point out the percentages again, we had $25 million last 
year. The request was for $36 million. That was a 40 percent increase. 
We ended up with $5 million less than that. It seems that using 
percentages does not really reflect the contribution of the Federal 
Government to what is a very huge, serious contribution; again, 34,000 
fire departments, over 1.2 million first responders, 80 percent of whom 
are volunteers, and to implement the blue ribbon committee we need that 
money.
  Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, the percentages do show a scale of 
increase in this budget. No matter how we cut it, a 20 percent increase 
in any budget is very substantial. It would be difficult, quite 
frankly, to manage.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. In this amendment, my friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan, proposes to give the resources needed for the U.S. Fire 
Administration to implement changes called for in a recent Blue Ribbon 
Panel report.
  The panel focused on the need to improve management activities, to 
appoint a Chief Operating Officer, and to establish a stronger mission 
statement.
  Mr. Chairman, FEMA director James Lee Witt and the Fire 
Administrator, Carrye Brown, both support the changes recommended by 
the panel. Indeed, these changes are already being implemented.
  Let me emphasize my very strong support for the activities of the 
Fire Administration. I know the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Walsh) shares my desire to provide the resources needed to implement 
the panel's report, and I look forward to working with him to do so as 
this process moves forward.
  However, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has characterized 
this offset as coming from EPA's administrative account. What has not 
been made clear is that this account also happens to contain almost all 
of EPA's programmatic funding.
  The cut could mean reductions in air and water protection, compliance 
assistance activities, pesticide registration, educational activities. 
As I said, this is EPA's programmatic account, and it will cut deeply, 
because EPA's funding is marginal in these activities. Those marginal 
cuts, while they may seem small, loom large when they get down to the 
programmatic level.
  EPA is already underfunded in these areas, and this cut could impact 
it adversely. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment. At the same time, 
I want to restate my support for FEMA, for the Fire Administration, and 
for our country's first responders, and to working with the gentleman 
as this process moves forward to try to get adequate funding in this 
very important program.
  I commend the gentleman for his efforts here, and reluctantly oppose 
his amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for yielding to me just a second just, again, 
to make clear that, from that account, it is a $1.8 billion account, 
out of that $1.8 billion, roughly one-tenth of 1 percent we are asking 
be transferred to an area that can tremendously help environmental 
needs. So it is a very small portion of that $1.8 billion.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed, and I acknowledge that. The 
point is that the gentleman is operating at the margins of accounts 
that are underfunded already, so it has dramatic impacts, not only 
programmatic, but also employment impacts at this point.
  All of these accounts are underfunded in this whole bill. That is the 
principal purpose of opposing most of these amendments. We are 
operating on the margins. We need additional allocation. We need 
additional headroom in the caps. We need to do something with the 
budget resolution. These amendments are cutting accounts that cannot 
afford to be cut because they are already underfunded.
  While it is an attractive argument to point out that the gentleman's 
amendment only cuts a small percentage across the board in these 
accounts, and that is true, it has dramatic effects because these 
accounts are already at the margins and unacceptably underfunded.
  So, again, I hope that we get money in this bill as we move forward. 
I would certainly join the Chairman in working with the gentleman in 
ensuring that there are additional funds in this very worthy 
undertaking.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: At the end of the bill 
     (before the short title), insert the following new section:


                  rural veterans health care services

       Sec. _. The House supports efforts to implement 
     improvements in health care services for veterans in rural 
     areas.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment expresses the Congress' 
support of efforts to improve rural health care delivery for our 
veterans, and I believe it is absolutely noncontroversial.
  It is imperative that the special needs of veterans living in rural 
areas are recognized and that the particular problems associated with 
delivery of VA health care in rural areas often in face of shrinking 
resources are addressed.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the

[[Page H8033]]

gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, for 
what I understand is their support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for his 
constructive amendment. We believe, just as he does, that rural health 
care services for veterans are extremely important and consider this a 
friendly amendment, and we are willing to accept it on our side.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) who is also sympathetic to this, as I 
understand.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic, being from a rural 
area.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the problems facing veterans all over this 
country and especially in rural areas are very serious, and I think 
this amendment is helpful.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. ----. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or 
     administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment, I mean to 
infer no criticism of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the 
chairman of the subcommittee who has put this bill together under some 
very, very difficult circumstances and I think in many ways has done an 
excellent job, particularly in providing additional funds for veterans.
  However, there is criticism to be offered in the way that the 
Veterans Administration is implementing a reallocation of existing 
resources. It is arguable that the resources are totally inadequate and 
will continue to be so after the large infusion of funds which are 
contained in this bill should the bill become law.
  Nevertheless, VERA, in its allocation of these funds, is doing a 
grave disservice to certain veterans in certain parts of the country. 
In the initial phase of the implementation of this reallocation of 
resources, the veterans who are being injured the most initially are 
those who reside in the northeastern portion of the country. Those 
injuries are now spreading to other parts of the country and are being 
experienced by veterans in the midwest and elsewhere.
  So we are calling upon the Veterans Administration in this amendment 
to cease and desist in the reallocation of these resources until such 
time as it can be adequately discerned what damages are being done and 
how best to use the resources that are available for veterans health 
care.
  The VA is currently operating on the basis of a simple computer 
model, and that computer model does not adequately take into 
consideration the needs of veterans, the special circumstances that 
they may have, the environment in which the health care services are 
being delivered, and a host of other variables.
  The consequence of that is that veterans in health care settings in a 
growing number of areas across the country are not getting the quality 
of care that they deserve and which the Congress wants them to have and 
which every American wants them to have.
  Now it may be that veterans in some parts of the country have not 
been injured by this reallocation formula yet, but we have experienced 
a growing number of veterans being injured as a result of this 
reallocation formula over the last several years.
  The initial negative impacts began to show up in the New York 
metropolitan area in 1996. Since then, they have spread through New 
England and down the East Coast and across Pennsylvania and into the 
Ohio region in the midwest. So if my colleagues have not yet begun to 
experience with their veterans the negative impacts of VERA, they need 
not wait too much longer, because those negative impacts will begin to 
express themselves almost invariably as a result of this formula, which 
is a blind formula totally without concern or care for the quality of 
health care that is being delivered in many parts of the country as a 
result.
  So it is no less than prudent for us to intercede, to step in, and to 
say that this formula should not go further until we have a better and 
clearer understanding of its full impacts, and that we can develop a 
formula for allocation which will be in keeping with the needs of 
veterans and ensure that they get the quality of care that they 
deserve.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today along with the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who has just spoken, to offer this 
amendment to suspend the Department of Veterans Affairs VERA formula.
  We are joined by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) in 
offering this amendment today.
  This amendment is about fairness, about treating all veterans equally 
regardless of where they live. After all, these veterans, all veterans 
served our country together, not from any particular region or 
particular State.
  When VERA was implemented in April of 1997, without, I believe, 
adequate public discussion and education among veterans throughout the 
country, it began shifting funds away from some areas of the country 
such as the Northeast to other regions like the South and West. The VA 
claimed it was moving the money to where the veterans are. In the 
process, the VA left many of our veterans behind.
  Why should a veteran in one part of the country receive better 
services than a veteran in a different part of the country simply 
because of where they chose to live?
  VERA is destructive public policy. The program redirects money from 
areas where existing elderly populations, with increasing needs for 
care, to areas with developing veterans population that have similar 
needs. In the end, this program has done nothing more than pit veterans 
in one region of the country against veterans in other parts of the 
country.
  Let me tell my colleagues what VERA has meant for veterans in my 
congressional district. VERA has meant that security stations in the 
psychiatric ward in Lyons VA Medical Center are often empty or 
undermanned. VERA has meant fewer doctors and nurses working more 
overtime to care for patients at Lyons and East Orange Medical Centers. 
VERA has led to the closure of the Lyons emergency room and the severe 
cutback in services in pharmaceutical help.
  For the past 2 years, my area, VISN 3 in New York and New Jersey, has 
taken the biggest cuts under VERA. But New Jersey has the second oldest 
veterans population in the Nation after Florida. The veterans in my 
State are often older, sicker, and poorer than veterans that live 
elsewhere in the country.
  I know this from having visited these veterans time and time again at 
these hospitals. The Lyons VA Hospital treats over 250 aging vets in 
its nursing home, many of whom are confined to wheelchairs. Further, 
every bed in the Alzheimer's unit is filled. I have visited these 
patients and can say that each one of these men deserve a great deal of 
care and rightly so.
  Finally, Lyons has several inpatient units for treating posttraumatic 
stress disorder and other serious mental illnesses. This care is far 
more complex and far more expensive than outpatient treatment sought by 
many veterans in other parts of the country.
  But it is not just my area, VISN 3, that is treated unfairly under 
VERA. Last year, under the formula, seven Integrated Service Networks, 
or VISNs, lost money. Parts of Massachusetts, New York State, New 
Jersey, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, Montana, 
Utah, Wyoming, parts of California and Nevada.
  Even with a record $1.7 billion increase for veterans medical care in 
this

[[Page H8034]]

appropriations bill under discussion today, some VISNs, and the 
veterans who live there, will receive no additional funding while other 
regions will receive large funding increases.
  During our subcommittee's hearing in April, I asked Secretary West 
how much VISN 3 would receive if Congress increased the President's 
budget request by $1.5 billion. He could not answer me then. But in a 
written response, the VA admitted that for VISN 3 to break even in 
fiscal year 2000, we would have to increase the President's level by 
$2.4 billion.
  Further, according to the VA's own numbers, VISN 3 will lose $40 
million in fiscal year 2000 even with the $1.7 billion increase. As a 
result of VERA, VISN 13, which includes Minnesota, North Dakota and 
South Dakota will lose over $8 million. While veterans in these States 
will be denied services and face restricted access to care, veterans in 
other parts of the country will benefit from the increased allocation, 
up to $129 million.
  Our amendment to suspend the implementation of VERA is on target 
because it will give Congress the time to evaluate the program's 
consequences on the quality of health care for all veterans. It is our 
duty and responsibility to fully explore the impact of VERA on veterans 
medical care and to ascertain the fairness of the formula and what 
distribution of funds under VERA actually means for patient care.
  VERA is not the answer to the VA's funding problems. As I stated 
earlier, all VERA has done since it was implemented has been to create 
regional battles for diminishing funds.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment for the 
reasons that have been outlined by my other colleagues, especially the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  I come from Albany, New York, home of the Samuel S. Stratton VA 
Medical Center. I have seen the adverse impacts of this program in my 
community: Fewer services to veterans, fewer jobs for health care 
workers at that particular facility.
  But let me just address the more global concern that I have. Have we 
lost all of our priorities around here? Do we not realize that we would 
not have the privilege of going around bragging about how we live in 
the freest and most open democracy on the face of the earth had it not 
been for the men and women who wore the uniform of the United States 
military through the years. Have we forgotten that?
  My brother died in the service. He did not have a chance to come back 
and take advantage of benefits to veterans. He came back in a casket. 
But think about all the others who put their lives on the line, came 
back disabled, and need help, especially in their later years.

                              {time}  1445

  Think of all those who just served and took the chance that they 
might lose their life so that they could defend what we stand for here 
in the United States; yes, the freest and most open democracy on the 
face of the earth; the beacon for freedom for people all around the 
world.
  I will never forget as long as I live being in Armenia on their 
independence day. I traveled throughout the northern part of that 
country, and I watched people stand in line for hours to get in for 
that privilege to vote for the first time ever. And then when they 
finished voting, they would not even go home. They had these little 
banquets at every polling place celebrating what happened. But what was 
most uplifting about it all was to be with them the next day in the 
streets of Yerevan as they celebrated and danced and shouted and sang 
``Long live free and independent Armenia.'' And then they said, ``The 
example of what we want to be like is the United States of America.'' 
That is what they said. And on that particular day I was never more 
proud to be an American.
  We should be proud to be Americans today and be proud of the people 
who went before us and put their lives on the line so that we could be 
enjoying all the blessings that we enjoy today. And we are failing in 
that regard. I ask my colleagues to think about that as they 
contemplate this amendment and support our veterans by supporting the 
Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened to the last Speaker make his points about 
serving our veterans. I think defeat of the Hinchey amendment serves 
our veterans as intended by the Congress and by those who are subject 
to movement in this country. The veterans populations that are moving 
out of the northeast and going elsewhere, to the south and the west, 
would be disserved by this amendment. So I rise in opposition to the 
Hinchey amendment. This would block continued implementation of the 
VERA system, a change that would cripple the VA.
  An identical amendment was offered last year. It failed in this House 
by a vote of 146 to 285. The House has spoken on this issue previously, 
and it has been against the position taken by the author of this 
amendment and those who support it.
  On April 1, 1997, Mr. Chairman, the VA began to implement the VERA 
system, which allocates health care resources according to the numbers 
of veterans in each of the 22 regional VISNs, the Veterans Integrated 
Service Networks. The Hinchey amendment would jeopardize health care in 
the majority of VA networks by blocking continued implementation of 
this system. Before VERA, funds were allocated according to the 
historical usage of VA facilities adjusted annually for inflation. When 
veterans migrated to the west and the south, funding continued to be 
concentrated in the northeast.
  The VERA system directly matches workloads with annual allocations, 
taking into account numbers of basic and special care veterans, 
national price and wage differences, and education and equipment 
differences. More efficient networks have more funds available for 
local initiatives and less efficient networks have an incentive to 
improve. Some regions do see a substantial change in their health care 
allocations under VERA, but all VA network administrators agree this 
reform is crucial to the sustainability of VA programs.
  Last August, the General Accounting Office reviewed the VERA system 
in response to congressional direction in last year's VA bill. Overall, 
VISN 3 and VISN 4, and the VA nationally, have increased the numbers of 
veterans served. Increased the numbers of veterans served. As measured 
by patient satisfaction, access to care also has improved, according to 
surveys. The report notes that the two VISNs, 3 and 4, increased 
veterans access to care despite reductions in the buying power of their 
allocations by increasing the efficiency of their health care delivery 
system. That is the issue here. That is how the system is intended to 
work.
  The GAO also concluded that greater oversight of the system is 
required. And that is good also. But the goals of VERA, to reduce 
inequities and allow the VA to serve more veterans, are being met.
  This amendment proposes to prohibit funding for the VERA allocation 
model, creating a significant question about what model the VA would 
use instead. Presumably the authors of the amendment would support a 
return to the allocations of 1996. Compared to fiscal year 1999, 
allocations of such an adjustment would mean 17 of the 22 VISNs would 
lose money. Some areas would be particularly devastated by such a 
reallocation. The Pacific Northwest, my district, my region, would be 
cut by 16 percent; the Southeast by 14 to 16 percent; the Southwest 
would be cut 17 percent.
  To restore funding to these 5 VISNs at fiscal year 1996 levels, all 
other 17 VISNs would take an approximate hit totaling $220 million. If 
VA was forced to recompute allocations according to the old model, the 
cuts would be even more severe. The two VA medical centers I represent 
would see their budgets cut by more than $9 million this year if we 
restored the old formula. What does that do to my veterans? I respect 
the comments about other veterans, but this hurts veterans no matter 
what. Such a bigger hit would cripple the vast majority of VISNs across 
the country.
  I believe we should encourage the VA to continue moving forward with 
this successful initiative. We should oppose the Hinchey amendment. And 
if my colleagues are from any of these other

[[Page H8035]]

States, Southwest, South or West, they should oppose this. Because it 
is essentially saying go back to the old system and perpetuate 
inefficiency in some of these veterans areas.
  So where the veterans are going, the veterans are receiving money for 
their health care, and that is appropriate. If there are fewer veterans 
in the Northeast and more veterans in the South and the West, the South 
and the West ought to get more allocation to help the veterans' health 
care needs of those regions.
  I have the greatest respect for the authors of this amendment and 
those who have spoken in favor of it, but freezing the existing system 
or changing it dramatically, as I think this amendment would, is a 
disservice to veterans nationally. It may argue in favor of the 
veterans in that region, but it hurts the veterans nationally. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment as the House has done in the 
past.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey-
Frelinghuysen amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin, let me say that I don't doubt the 
sincerity of any Member's commitment to our veterans. The increase in 
veterans health care and service funding that this appropriation 
provides is truly historic. I commend Chairman Walsh and the members of 
the subcommittee on their work and dedication to the budget 
resolution's priorities.
  Earlier this year, each Member should have received the 1999 VERA 
allocations book. It states on page 9 that ``A major premise of VERA is 
that networks receiving relatively fewer funds will adjust by becoming 
more efficient--not by reducing services or numbers of veterans 
served.''
  If you consider that many of the networks in the Northeast and the 
Midwest are already among the most efficient providers of veterans care 
in the country, then you can clearly see the problem with this premise. 
For these networks, there is no way to adjust without reducing services 
or numbers of veterans served.
  The facts are clear. The quantity and quality of the health care 
services in the Northeast and Midwest have declined. These veterans 
deserve better.
  VERA was supposed to improve care, not harm it. VERA was supposed to 
tailor the allocations to each of the 22 networks based on the region's 
labor costs, veteran population, patient classification, facility 
condition, and other factors. Instead, it has led to a veteran against 
veteran, region against region competition. It has to stop.
  Since fiscal year 1996, VISN 1, the network for all of New England, 
has faced an 8 percent reduction in resource allocations. During the 
same time, Congress has increased the total allocation by over 5 
percent.
  Congress and the VA should work together to find a better method of 
providing this critical care and determining resource allocations. I 
urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise 
today as a cosponsor of the Frelinghuysen-Hinchey amendment.
  The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation is anything but what its 
name implies. VERA is indeed not equitable. In fact, it has had a 
disastrous impact on veterans health care in New Jersey. VERA was 
intended to direct the VA health resources to the areas of the highest 
veterans population. However, the VERA equation fails to calculate the 
level of care required by the patients.
  VISN 3, of which my district is a part, has the second oldest veteran 
population in the United States. Clearly, these veterans have a greater 
need for medical care and pay the highest health care costs of all 
veterans, yet they will suffer from across-the-board cuts to their 
programs. Even with a $1.7 billion increase over the President's 
budget, VISN 3 will lose $40 million. Meanwhile, VISN 8, in Florida, 
which has legitimate needs, will receive an increase of $129 million. 
Mr. Chairman, that does not sound like equity to me.
  Not only is the level of support provided to New Jersey veterans 
unfair, it is jeopardizing their health condition. Lyons as well as 
East Orange Hospital Centers have closed their pharmacies. There have 
been round after round of RIFs in both New York and New Jersey veteran 
hospitals. VERA has been a failure when measured against the health 
care needs of our veterans.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Frelinghuysen-Hinchey amendment. 
Send the Veterans Administration back to the drawing board on this 
proposal. America's veterans deserve no less.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment offered by my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), to support the 
reconsideration of VERA. This issue of VERA concerns many lives in the 
State of Maine as it pertains to veterans in particular but their 
families throughout the State also. I ask today that the House 
recognize the adverse effects of the VERA and how it appears to be 
having an adverse effect on many of my constituents and the 
constituents of many others in this body.
  The Togas VA facility in Maine serves almost all Maine veterans and 
has felt the impact of stringent funding levels, which is referred to 
as region VISN 1. There have been more veterans seeking health services 
from VA Togas since VERA has been instituted, not fewer. But because of 
VERA, the resources are continuing to squeeze the VA's health care 
services. There has not been any study in regards to the rural impact 
of VERA and what it has done not just to Maine but other parts of rural 
America and its impact on veterans and veterans' health care.
  Maine veterans expressed a significant level of anxiety about the 
present and future level of care at the Togas facility. And when we 
have asked our veterans to sacrifice, and to make the ultimate 
sacrifice by possibly laying down their lives down in defense of our 
country with the guarantee of health care for themselves, and then to 
be put into a situation where we are continuing, over a gradual period 
of time, of taking away those resources and not giving the veterans the 
health care protection that we had promised them when they had made 
their commitment to serve their country, I think gets at one of the 
underpinnings and foundation that has made America strong. We have to 
reinforce that and make sure we maintain our commitment to veterans.
  My district is overwhelmingly rural, with many veterans finding that 
they cannot receive certain services in Maine. And asking a veteran to 
travel across the strait is enough of a burden, but many veterans are 
forced to travel to Boston, the hub of a network serving New England 
States for health care services. Mr. Chairman, in my State there is 22 
million acres of land, over 3,500 miles of a rock-bound coast. In some 
parts of Maine there is more wildlife than life. And in that State, 
where it takes 5 to 7 hours to cover from one end to the other, asking 
veterans to then travel further downstate, enduring many long hours of 
travel, being away from their family and friends for support, I think 
is unconscionable. And I am very concerned that this VERA system may 
exacerbate this situation and it may not be helping the veterans, as we 
have seen in our experiences in Maine and throughout the country, as 
evidenced by the speakers here on both sides of the aisle in support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the House to support this amendment.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment being offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), to 
prohibit any funds from being used to implement the Veterans Equity 
Resource Allocation system known as VERA.
  VERA was created to correct a perceived inequity in the manner in 
which veterans' health care dollars were being distributed across our 
Nation. While a noble effort, VERA was fundamentally flawed in that it 
did not look at the type of care being delivered

[[Page H8036]]

to veterans in given regions. Furthermore, it also failed to consider 
the effect of regional costs of providing health care in its 
calculations.
  Under VERA, the watchword was efficiency; deliver the most care at 
the least cost. That sounds wonderful if the subject under discussion 
is outpatient care. But by forcing a one-size-fits-all solution to the 
problem, VERA has unfairly penalized those VISNs that provide vital 
services, such as substance abuse treatment, services for homeless 
veterans, mental health services, and spinal cord injury treatments. 
Under VERA, these services are all deemed too expensive and 
inefficient.
  VERA was also implemented at a time when the VA's budget was 
essentially flatlined. Thus, VISN directors were not provided 
additional funds to offset the cost of annual pay raises for their VA 
staff as well as annual medical inflation costs.

                              {time}  1500

  This was not a problem for those directors of VISNs that received 
money under VERA. However, for those directors in VISNs like our VISN 3 
in New York, that were losing money under VERA, this was a double hit 
that crowded out additional funds needed for other vital services.
  Mr. Chairman, it is commendable that the subcommittee was able to 
find an additional $1.7 billion for our veterans' medical care. Yet, 
thanks to VERA, none of that money will find its way to the Northeast 
where it is vitally needed. Instead, it is going to be spent in those 
VISNs that have already seen increases in funding due to VERA.
  Mr. Chairman, this is wrong and it is inequitable. The veterans of 
the Northeast, who are older, sicker, and less mobile than their 
counterparts in the Sunbelt, should not be unfairly penalized for where 
they choose to live.
  This amendment starts to correct this problem by terminating VERA, a 
well-intentioned but poorly executed system that blatantly 
discriminates against those veterans who reside in the Northeast.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the 
Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment to bring adequate health care to our 
veterans.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Frankly, what would happen here is we are turning back the clock. They 
would be distributing funds where veterans are not located. The whole 
idea was to actually have the funds go where the veterans are located.
  In Public Law 104-204, it was mandated that the VA medical care funds 
should be equitably distributed throughout the country to ensure that 
veterans have similar access to care regardless of the region where 
they live.
  Responding to that directive, the VA developed the Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation system, which we call ``VERA.'' In essence, this 
simply calls for distributing funds fairly based upon geographics, 
based upon the number of patients which VA medical centers in that 
region have treated.
  The VERA system recognizes that there is a variability within the VA 
health care system. It makes simple adjustments for variations in labor 
costs. So the opponents to this say it has not made these variable 
adjustments for labor costs, it is already in VERA. It is also for 
research and education. So all the factors are already in here.
  When I hear my colleague from New York say the people in the North 
are less mobile than the people down South, now, that is not true. The 
people down South have the same problems as the people up North. The 
fact is that there are more of them.
  This amendment from my good friend would bar VA from distributing 
fiscal year 2000 funds under a system designed to achieve equity and 
reward efficiency. The amendment does not answer the key question, and 
this is a key question: What would he replace with VERA?
  Presumably, its proponents want VA to reinstitute a truly inequitable 
system. So what they are asking for by supporting the Hinchey amendment 
is an inequitable system, not based upon geographics where all the 
veterans are going. They are ignoring population changes.
  There is not one person that is for the Hinchey amendment that cannot 
tell me there has not been a population redistribution to the South. 
Patient utilization and hospital efficiency.
  So this simply takes into effect all the factors of labor cost and 
research and education and basically puts the funds where 
geographically they should be located.
  If this amendment passed, we are talking about chaos in the system. 
Its proponents aim to bail out the one network which would have less 
funding in fiscal year 2000 than fiscal year 1999. To cure that 
problem, their amendment would create problems for veterans in 
virtually every region of this country.
  So, my colleagues, it is important to appreciate that, under VERA, VA 
has maintained a reserve fund, a reserve fund to alleviate special 
financial problems which individual networks encounter. No one has 
talked about this reserve fund.
  So I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) he can go to 
get that reserve fund and get some of the funds there to help the 
individual hospital. So I encourage him and others to pursue a remedy 
for this network, if needed, through the reserve fund. Go to the 
reserve fund that was set up under VERA to handle the problems that my 
colleague and people from New York and New Jersey are talking about.
  Do not unravel a system that is working, a system that is working for 
the veterans of this country, and the funds are now going where the 
veterans are going and it is geographically distributed.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, I want to answer the question of my colleague. What we 
would replace it with is an equitable system, something that is fair 
and reasonable.
  The problem is that we have in VERA a system that is inequitable and 
unfair. It is not that I do not want to recognize the fact that the 
population of veterans in Florida is growing. Of course we do. And we 
want all of those veterans to be taken care of.
  I elicit the sympathy of my colleague for the veterans in New York 
and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Rhode Island and Maine and Ohio. I 
appreciate the sympathy of my colleague for the veterans in Florida. 
Share that sympathy with other veterans in other parts of the country.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the point is the 
geographic location, that the veterans are coming to the South more 
than the North. The funds have been distributed on that basis, as well 
as labor cost, research, and education; and we have set up a reserve 
fund.
  My question to my colleague, which he can answer on his own time, is 
why does he not go to the reserve fund and try to get his money for 
these individual problems rather than creating chaos by eliminating a 
system that a blue ribbon commission has looked at. This is a far-
reaching analysis to come up with this redistribution of the funds for 
the veterans in the geographic locations that need them.
  The basic problem is, which we both agree, is that we need more 
funding for the veterans, and on that I can agree with my colleague.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the 
Hinchey amendment.
  Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have 
witnessed the effects of a $226-million cut to the lower New York area 
veterans network.
  After careful study of VERA, I have come to the conclusion that it is 
flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's methodology, its implementation, 
and the VA's oversight of this new spending plan.
  It is unfortunate that the VERA plan imposed upon our VA facilities 
is not one that provides proper funding to VA facilities but one to 
steal from Peter to pay Paul or to take from some VA facilities to give 
to others.
  The gentleman was referring to the reserve fund. In fact, in the 
Northeast,

[[Page H8037]]

in VISN 3, that fund has had to be made available to the New York State 
area for the last 2 years because we keep running out of money in New 
York.
  Before us today we have the VA-HUD Appropriations bill that contains 
the largest ever increase in medical care funding, $1.7 billion. And 
for this we have an excellent committee to thank.
  Unfortunately, under the VERA program, even with this increase in 
size, the New York-New Jersey area will not see one dime of additional 
funding. In fact, according to the director of our VA network, we will 
in effect take a cut of $124 million.
  This $124 million includes the mandated $40.6 million VERA cut, the 
rising cost of medical inflation that runs at 2 percent a year in our 
area, and the new mandate for hepatitis C coverage.
  Let me speak to that point for a moment. I work here every day to 
provide new essential services to our veterans, such as the hepatitis C 
coverage, and to give many men and women who work in our VA hospitals a 
reasonable cost-of-living increase. But if we are going to do this, we 
must provide the funding necessary. Without any funds to cover these 
costs, the only option is to cut other services or reduce the quality 
of care provided.
  It is wrong for us to pass new mandates on our VA hospitals without 
providing them the funding necessary to properly implement them. Please 
join me in returning common sense to VA funding methodology and vote 
for this amendment.
  While VERA is supposed to promote more efficient and effective 
delivery of care, I am seeing the exact opposite occur at our veterans 
hospitals in my area. The staff is wonderfully caring and committed, 
but the VA is not supporting them, lowering their morale and making 
their jobs all the harder.
  I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
Hinchey amendment and make the necessary investment into veterans 
hospitals in order to keep our promise of our care for our veterans. 
The veterans of this Nation gave their best for us. Now we need to do 
our best for them.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, VERA, as it is called, corrects historic geographic 
imbalances in funding for VA health care services and ensures equitable 
access to care for all veterans.
  Long ago, Mr. Chairman, our Nation made a commitment to care for the 
brave men and women who fought the battles to keep America free. These 
are our Nation's veterans. Please take note when I say, ``our Nation's 
veterans.'' They are not Florida's veterans or Arizona's veterans or 
New York's veterans. They are our veterans, and we as a Nation have a 
collective responsibility to honor the commitment we make to them.
  When they volunteered to fight for America's freedom, no one asked 
these veterans what part of the country they came from. It simply did 
not matter. Unfortunately, when they came home, veterans found out that 
where they live matters a great deal. Until the passage of VERA, a 
veteran's ability to access the VA health care system literally 
depended upon where he or she happened to live.
  Since coming to Congress, and I am sure this is true for most of us, 
I have heard of veterans that were denied care at Florida VA medical 
facilities. In many instances, these veterans had been receiving care 
at their local VA medical center. However, once they moved to Florida, 
the VA was forced to turn them away because the facilities in our State 
simply did not have the resources to meet the high demand for care.
  This lack of adequate resources is further compounded in the winter 
months when Florida veterans are literally crowded out of the system by 
individuals who travel south to enjoy our warm weather.
  It is hard for my veterans to understand how they could lose their VA 
health care simply by moving to another part of the country or because 
a veteran from a different State is using our VA facilities.
  Congress enacted VERA for a very simple reason, equity. No matter 
where they live or what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve 
to have equal access to quality health care. Since VERA's 
implementation, the Florida Veterans' Integrated Service Network, VISN, 
has treated approximately 44,410 more veterans. The Florida network 
estimates that it will treat a total of 285,000 veterans by the end of 
fiscal year 1999.
  The Florida network has also opened 12 new community based outpatient 
clinics since VERA's implementation. It plans to open additional 
clinics in the near future. None of this could have happened without 
VERA. We have to ask ourselves, what happens if VERA is not 
implemented?
  The failure to move forward with an improved and fair funding 
allocation system would mean that the VA would miss a unique 
opportunity to revitalize its way of doing business. The negative 
impact would be felt most by veterans who would not be treated in areas 
that are currently underfunded. Failure to implement VERA will waste 
taxpayers' dollars because a rush to the funding practices of the past 
will mean that some VA facilities will receive more money per veteran 
than others to provide essentially the same care.
  The author of this amendment argues that veterans of New York are not 
being treated equitably. The VERA system already takes regional 
differences into account by making adjustments for labor costs, 
differences in patient mix, and differing levels of support for 
research and education.
  With the $1.7 billion increase in VA health care included in H.R. 
2684, VA facilities in the metropolitan New York area will receive an 
average of $5,336 per veteran patient. This means that these facilities 
will receive an average payment for each patient that is 16.11 percent 
higher than the national average.
  On the other hand, the Florida VISN will receive $4,481 per patient, 
an average payment which is 2.49 percent below the national average. 
How is this inequitable to New York's veterans?
  If the Hinchey amendment passes, continued funding imbalances will 
result in unequal access to VA health care for veterans in different 
parts of the country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  The only inequity that the people from New York will suffer would be, 
if this amendment passes, when they move down to Florida, then they 
will see what the inequity is.
  The mathematics is very clear. I hope my colleagues will listen to 
the gentleman from Florida. This is just a question of fairness, of 
basic fairness, and it is a question I think that all of us should ask 
for ourselves. Are the veterans who live in the Sunbelt entitled to 
less than those who stayed in the more populated areas that have not 
grown?

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer a modest proposal. We have 
obviously a very controversial amendment here. We have spent about half 
an hour discussing it so far. This has taken at least as much time as 
any amendment, and I understand there are very deep and passionate 
interests on the part of all Members.
  What I would like to suggest, in the interest of time and expediency, 
we have the opportunity to finish this bill fairly soon. As a matter of 
fact, when this debate is concluded, there will be a vote on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and on, I presume, 
the Hinchey amendment. Then we would come back after that and conclude 
the debate on the remaining amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Members who are 
interested in discussing this limit their time to 3 minutes as opposed 
to the 5-minute rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Objection, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

[[Page H8038]]

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues on the floor can see, this is a very 
important issue in Florida. I think the entire Florida delegation is 
down here to speak on this issue. I might say that I think the reason 
we feel so passionately about it is because many of us were on the 
other end of this issue not but 5 years ago, 4 years ago, where our 
veterans were coming into our offices telling us that they could not 
get into the VA hospital; they could not get the health care that had 
been promised to them. So by the very nature, this has risen to be such 
a huge issue.
  Now, on top of that, since the VERA has been implemented, I have to 
say people come in and say for the first time they are actually not 
having to wait for as long as they have.
  Secondly, I would also like to point out that we have done what I 
think has been a masterful job in Florida in using even the amount of 
small resources that we have gotten, in the fact that we are not 
building huge VA hospitals anymore. What we are doing is we are doing 
outpatient clinics. We are actually going into these communities. We 
are actually having these veterans be served right in their own back 
yards, not 100 miles away, not 200 miles away, which in some cases is 
the way they did it. It was very cumbersome and very difficult.
  With these additional dollars and, quite frankly, we could still use 
some more if we wanted to get into this, that we, in fact, believe that 
we have done a very good job with the smaller number of resources that 
we do have.
  This whole VERA was really done on the fact because there were scarce 
resources, and the fact that over the years that every facility was 
getting just the same amount every day, or every year through the 
budget, they would get a 2 percent increase, a 3 percent increase, and 
there was nothing, nothing, to talk about the population changes that 
were happening in this country.
  In fact, what we have noticed and what has been increasingly in 
Florida is the veterans population. So VERA basically just did a very 
simple allocation and said, if we can imagine this, that we ought to 
take health care for our veterans and follow where the patients are. 
That is all we are doing, is following where the patients have come.
  So hopefully we are getting this point across to our constituencies 
here in Washington, and let my colleagues know that those veterans who 
have come from their States and have moved into our State are now 
finally being taken care of.
  We appreciate what the Congress has done in the past. Please let us 
not turn this clock back. Please let us not have the situation where we 
have to go to those veterans that we all cherish and know what they 
gave up for us to go back and tell them that the system is not going to 
work again, that we are going to rearrange these numbers again and not 
based on the right reasons but all on the wrong reasons.
  So with that, I would hope that we defeat this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that in the 
interest of time, to ensure that every speaker has the opportunity for 
a full 5 minutes of debate on their part and at the same time being 
concerned about the amount of time this amendment is taking, if we 
could not agree on a time certain to end debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, just looking around, I would 
think the Members I see on the floor who I think are interested in this 
debate that we would end all debate by 10 minutes until 4:00, or some 
such time that we might agree on.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, maybe that 
is the best way to do it. If we could make that 4:00, I think there are 
about six of us here at this point in time, that would work about 
right. That would be 30 minutes, if that is agreeable.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that would give everybody on the 
floor an opportunity to speak. If there would be no objection to that, 
I would agree to 4:00.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia that debate on the Hinchey amendment conclude at 4:00?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will continue to recognize Members under the 
5-minute rule.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to speak out on this 
important subject. There has been an ongoing lack of agreement between 
certain regions of the country on veterans and equitable funding. This 
particular problem has been cleared up by Congress. We all know what 
the problems were before the McCain and Graham bill that came up with 
this equitable formula, and I say it is equitable because the model is 
composed or computed in such a way that the VA's funding methodology is 
no longer based on traditional patterns. It is based on an assessment 
of what is done there. It is based on certain facets, and it is 
tailored to the price index that reflects the unique characteristics of 
these particular areas. So these veterans' networks, each of them has a 
separate and distinct characteristic and that is the background of the 
VERA funding model.
  The implementation of VERA, as we all know, took place in 1997. 
Halfway through the fiscal year, everything was done to allocate 
resources in an equitable manner. The networks were funded at 
approximately one half of the 1996 level, plus a 2.75 percent increase. 
For fiscal year 1998, 13 VISNs received increases over funding levels 
for fiscal year 1997. Nine networks received less funding.
  As with the previous year, a 5 percent limitation cap was imposed on 
the amount that any VISN, that any network, could be reduced below 1997 
levels. So regardless of what we are hearing today, Mr. Chairman, not 
any of the VISNs have been hurt that tremendously so that we should not 
stick to our VERA formula.
  I am calling for a defeat of this amendment because the medical care 
appropriated budget which comes to this subcommittee for 1999 provides 
a modest increase over fiscal year 1998 to $220 million, or 1.3 
percent. For the 1999 fiscal allocations, the maximum amount, maximum 
that any VISN network was reduced below 1998, was, again, just 5 
percent. The VA has emphasized that these networks receiving relatively 
fewer fundings will adjust, and they will adjust because the money is 
going where the veterans are. Wherever the veterans go, according to 
the VERA formula, that is where the money goes.
  The older veterans come to Florida; not only Florida. That is one of 
the States they go, but I am here to say that we have a good formula. 
We do not need to change it because of traditional patterns. It is not 
the fault of Florida that the older veterans and the sicker veterans 
come to Florida.
  We are here today to say that the basic care of veterans is being 
taken care of adequately by the VERA formula. So is the complex care. 
So is the geographic price adjustment. There is a differential here 
that makes this adjustment fair to the Northeast as well as the South, 
and it is based on labor costs that is paid by the VA facilities, as 
they compare to the VA national average.
  These figures are not just pulled out of the sky, Mr. Chairman. There 
is that differential that is based upon labor costs.
  Also, they make allocation adjustments for labor that is based on the 
most recent data that the VA can put together. So in 1999, it even 
looks better for VERA in terms of adjusting the formula.
  This VERA formula is fair. It is equitable. It is based on 
substantive data. It is not based on historical funding patterns as to 
who received the money 15 to 20 years ago. It is not based on politics. 
Congress initiated this formula, and I would like to say to my 
colleagues, please defeat the Hinchey amendment for fairness for all 
the veterans of this country.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Hinchey-
Frelinghuysen amendment. I am very proud to be one

[[Page H8039]]

of the cosponsors of it, which simply calls for a 1-year moratorium on 
the VA's implementation of the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation 
formula, and as Members know by now, hearing it so often, VERA. The 
moratorium will give Congress and the administration the time needed to 
make adjustments in the VERA formula that was instituted in 1997 so 
that veterans in certain geographical areas and age groups are no 
longer shortchanged by this funding mechanism. Quite simply, we simply 
need to put E, the big E, equity, back into VERA. Regrettably VERA 
paints veterans services with a broad brush leaving very little, if 
any, room for significant examination waiting costs associated with 
health care. VERA is a mathematical formula that essentially calculates 
how much a VA network will receive based on the raw number of veterans 
and whether their health care needs are basic or complex. The formula 
fails, utterly fails, to take into account the age and perhaps most 
importantly the specific type of illnesses faced by the various 
veterans populations.
  For example, in New Jersey, our veterans are the second oldest group 
of veterans in the Nation, if we quantify it by State. As we all know, 
with age comes a plethora of health care problems, many of them more 
costly to treat. In our network alone 52 percent of veterans are over 
the age of 65 compared to 44 percent on the average, and I heard even 
earlier that many of these people, and they do, many of our veterans do 
move south and end up living in Florida. They happen to be the 
healthier ones, those who have the means as well as the health to go 
down to Florida, often by driving, and to have either a second home 
there or to actually up stakes and move there.
  The sicker ones and the poorer people, the more indigent, stay in New 
Jersey and New York and they seek to use the services of the VA. They 
are the ones who cannot move. So it is not just age. It is also their 
costs, their situation. We have an explosion of things like cancer in 
our State. Those folks are not moving to Florida. They are seeking to 
get their health care right at their Veterans Administration, and now 
they are finding the VA has to do more with less.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a 1-year moratorium we are asking for. This has 
only been in place since 1997. It is not working.

                              {time}  1530

  I happen to be the vice chairman of the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs. We have looked at this. I have sat with, for hours, with VA 
officials both in-State as well as down here, and I am totally 
dissatisfied with their answers, and I think I find it regrettable that 
some of my friends from Florida are standing up and saying it is okay 
down here. We are losing, and poor, indigent and very sickly veterans 
are the ones that are the net losers. We are not going to stand by and 
allow it, and I hope that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) amendment gets 
passed.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of equitable and fairness, and again we 
are asking for a 1-year moratorium so we can fix it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment today calls for a one year moratorium on 
the VA's implementation of the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation 
Formula--VERA as it is known for short. The moratorium will give 
Congress and the Administration the time needed to make adjustments in 
the VERA formula that was instituted in 1997 so that veterans in 
certain geographical areas and age groups are no longer shortchanged by 
this funding mechanism. Quite simply, we need to put the ``e''--
equity--back into VERA.
  Regrettably, VERA paints veterans services with a broad brush leaving 
very little--if any--room for significant extenuating costs associated 
with health care. VERA is a mathematical formula that essentially 
calculates how much a VA network will receive based on the raw number 
of veterans and whether their health care needs are basic or complex. 
The formula fails to take into account the age and perhaps most 
importantly, the specific types of illnesses faced by the various 
veterans populations. For instance, in New Jersey, our veterans are the 
second oldest group of veterans in the nation if you quantify by state. 
As we all know, with age comes new health care problems, many of them 
more costly. In the New Jersey part of our network alone, 58% of 
veterans are over the age of 65. Compare this with a nationwide average 
of 44%. However, the VERA formula makes no allowance for this 
disproportionate representation of aging veterans. A veteran's decision 
to stay in New Jersey or the Northeast for that matter, should not mean 
that their VA health care network is forced to do more with less. 
Veterans should not be forced to wait for weeks on end to see a primary 
care doctor or specialist as has been the case with increasing 
frequency in my state as a result of VERA.
  Similarly, VERA fails to specifically weigh the type of medical 
treatment required in the varying networks.
  For instance, the VA has mandated treatment of veterans with 
Hepatitis C. In New Jersey alone, the VA is treating 12 to 15 veterans 
per month who have tested positive for Hepatitis C, with a treatment 
cost of $15,000 per patient. Failing to take into account that we have 
a high rate of Hepatitis C in our network as well as a high rate of 
AIDS cases, VERA punishes New Jersey and the larger network that we are 
in, for treating all veterans, not just those who use the VA for an 
annual physical or for prescription drugs, but those with serious, 
ongoing chronic illnesses.
  Our veterans served our country in her time of need; we should not 
forget them now simply because where they chose to spend their ``Golden 
Years'' does not nicely mesh with the VA's own bureaucratic formula. 
While VERA is well intentioned, the fact of the matter is that it pits 
veterans against each other merely on the basis of their geography.
  In the 4th Congressional district of New Jersey, which I have the 
privilege to represent, veterans have felt the effects of VERA first 
hand. Faced with budget cuts due to the VERA formula, the network 
administrators who oversee Central and Northern New Jersey first 
responded with a knee jerk solution: elimination of the specialty 
services at the VA's clinic in Brick, New Jersey.
  Needless to say, this decision immediately mobilized the veterans of 
Ocean and Monmouth Counties, who joined me in fighting these cuts. 
These specialty services, whether they be rheumatology or podiatry, 
free our veterans from being forced to spend valuable hours traveling 
great distances to see a specialist for the care they desperately need. 
Through my continued efforts to get the VA to ``think outside the 
box,'' we have managed to restore specialty services to the Brick 
Clinic. This is a battle however that we should not have had to wage. 
Our veterans deserve their health care. It should be reasonably 
accessible, period. They should not be held hostage to VERA as they are 
now.
  There is simply no question that the VERA formula brought on the 
Brick Clinic's ongoing financial challenges. Furthermore, we are faced 
with at least a $36 million cut in our VA network in the upcoming 
fiscal year, so it is hard to see how threats to specialty services 
will not resume over the next several months. I ask my colleagues: 
where is the equity in a cut to Central and Northern New Jersey's 
network when our veteran population is aging rapidly and will need 
more, not less, specialty services?
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
amendment.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the 
Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same. The amendment is simple. It suspends the VERA program. What we 
need to do is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a 
program that is fair to all veterans.
  If what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has just enunciated 
can be documented, this is an embarrassing situation, Mr. Chairman, for 
the veterans and those of us who think we are helping to provide for 
those veterans in the State. VERA has selective memory and selective 
facts when they determined where the dollars are going to help our 
veterans. How horrible that the veterans find themselves in what we are 
calling here and defining as a sectional war. It almost reminds me of 
the debate on transportation that was in this hall, these halls. I 
remember that distinctly. Many of our veterans are not even registered. 
Most veterans do not even know what their benefits are.
  Mr. Chairman, that is indeed an embarrassing situation.
  So while the age of vets is different in the State of New Jersey and 
while the type of illness is different in the State of New Jersey, in 
the tri-State area I might add, what we need to do is take a look at 
this program very, very carefully. Congress will provide $1.7 billion 
more for veterans medical care,

[[Page H8040]]

yet for many veterans services they will be cut and medical providers 
will be reduced because many parts of the Northeast and Midwest will 
loose.
  To those veterans who cannot move to Florida, I could not believe 
what I heard before to be very frank with my colleagues. With all due 
respect, the veterans equitable resource allocation program which re-
directs money from one region of the country to another region of the 
country to pay for veterans who live in other parts of the country to 
me needs to be totally examined. God, if our veterans do not deserve 
better, who do?
  The fact is that the VERA system is not equitable to all veterans. 
The amendment sends the message that VERA is not working, and it is 
not. The VA should develop a truly equitable plan.
  Members of the military put themselves at great risk to protect 
American interests around the world. In return for this service the 
Federal Government made a commitment to both active duty and retired 
military personnel to provide certain benefits regardless of age, 
regardless of where they lived. Our veterans helped shape the 
prosperity our Nation currently enjoys. It is our duty to ensure that 
commitments made to those who serve are kept.
  The VERA system is simply not working. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important amendment because it brings equity to all 
veterans and not just the select.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me just first rise in opposition to the well-intended amendment 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and my colleagues from New 
Jersey and others who definitely are on the side of the veteran; we 
realize that. Let me also suggest to my colleagues that Florida is not 
the bastion of wealth that is being assumed in this amendment, that 
somehow only the poor remain in their respective home States and only 
the wealthy move to Florida. We have veterans of every economic level. 
I urge my colleagues to come to my district and see the veterans 
firsthand. They are moving though in record numbers to the Sunbelt; 
there is no question about it. Every census, we get additional Members 
of Congress; every census, we get a different ratio of distribution of 
the formulas because people are moving in record numbers. And there is 
no difference with veterans.
  So I want to strongly urge we continue the formula currently 
established in law, that we look at ways to satisfy the concerns the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and others have raised, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), because they are 
genuine. They want to care for the people who served this country, and 
all of us together today should not be about debating States 
particularly, but how do we make certain that each and every budget and 
fiscal appropriation first looks at the veterans who served this 
country, dedicated their lives and now have merely asked to be treated 
in a dignified manner that they deserve?
  So again I want to urge my colleagues to carefully consider this, 
oppose the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and let us continue 
to debate the critical needs of veterans.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion about 
the veterans population in Florida. As the gentleman well knows, that 
about 61 percent of those who are treated are service connected. It is 
a very, very high number. And, in fact, I think we are second maybe 
only to Maine in the entire country in regard to that. So there has 
been some misunderstanding here today.
  Our funding under VERA has increased since 1997 by 14 percent in 
Florida, but the workload has increased by 30 percent. In fiscal year 
1995, VISN-8, which is the area that serves Florida, the VA office 
treated 225,000 veterans in fiscal 1999, will treat about 295,000, and 
it will go up to 300,000 in fiscal year 2000. I think that it is very 
clear that we need VERA to work.
  Now maybe some technical problems with it, but this amendment should 
be defeated. It is wrong, and I know how hard the chairman has worked 
on trying to increase the VA budget in this bill, and it is modestly 
there, not as far as the gentleman from Florida and I would like, but 
it is there to some extent. I am disappointed though that the NASA 
budget has been cut so severely, and it makes this bill extremely 
difficult for me to support because NASA is extremely important to 
Florida and the Nation as well. And I find it is not his fault, not the 
chairman's fault, not even the subcommittee's fault. But I find it very 
difficult that the way the appropriations language is set out in these 
committee structures, we cannot trade off with other areas where the 
gentleman and I would think we ought to have savings rather than taking 
it out of NASA which absolutely is critical for the future of this 
Nation.
  I also believe that we have a very serious matter in all respects 
with everything under this legislation, but above all we must keep VERA 
the way it is. The Hinchey amendment, while well meaning, is absolutely 
destructive, trying to let the moneys flow where the veterans go, and 
they are flowing to our State. Mr. Chairman, we are the only State with 
an increasing veterans population, we are now the second largest in the 
Nation. And we are going to get even larger in the coming years, and if 
we do not have the formula that is currently in law, there is no way 
that the veterans populations that are moving to the State of Florida 
in increasing numbers can be possibly served, are not even going to be 
served adequately as it is. We are well behind in every other respect.
  So I very much appreciate the gentleman from Florida for having 
yielded, Mr. Chairman, and I strongly oppose this amendment
  Mr. FOLEY. Reclaiming my time, I want to reiterate we have had a 
substantial caseload increase in the veterans facility in my district, 
but I also wanted to single out the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly) who has also been a strong strident advocate for veterans in her 
district, and while we disagree on the policy here, I do respect her 
standing up for veterans.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment and 
want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for what they have done here 
today in presenting this opportunity. And I have got to tell my 
colleagues this is not about discriminating by adopting this amendment. 
We are not proposing to discriminate against anyone, we are doing quite 
the opposite. We are proposing that we create a formula, have a period 
of time here to create a formula that is fair to every veteran in every 
State of the Union. That is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. Chairman, I am shocked and appalled that we are, under VERA, 
presently discriminating against those veterans who served their 
country nobly and discriminating against them based on which State they 
live in. We have got to end this travesty, and we have got to do it 
today with this amendment.
  Now my colleagues have heard some of the numbers here, but speaking 
again for New York and New Jersey, but also for 22 other States that 
are dramatically cut. Do my colleagues hear that? It is not normally 
New York and New Jersey. There are 22 other States dramatically cut 
under this VERA formula. But in terms of New York and New Jersey, we 
have the biggest cut. We are reduced $40 million.
  Not only did we not gain a penny out of the $1.7 billion, but we were 
cut $40 million. Okay?
  Now how does that get evaluated? How fair is that? How equitable can 
it possibly be? New Jersey has one of the oldest veterans populations, 
and if not the highest, one of the highest of the special needs 
veterans. I do not understand how anybody can support this kind of 
discrimination for our region of the country.
  Now we have a lot of other things that we could say here, but let me 
in the interests of time draw another conclusion here.
  The bottom line is that VERA is unacceptable, we must use this time 
period to correct it, and this amendment permits that correction. And 
might I say, and I do not know that anyone has

[[Page H8041]]

referenced this, but I will include this in my statement in the Record 
as an insert here, that even the GAO congressionally mandated study of 
August 1998 indicated in at least three areas, if not more, that there 
were oversights in funding to Northeast veterans, and they have 
indicated areas where VERA did not allocate resources necessarily 
properly, and I want that to be included here.
  So let me say as firmly as possible we cannot discriminate against 
these wonderful men and women who have served their country. We have 
got to correct that inequity and correct that discrimination, and we 
can do it here today with the Frelinghuysen-Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan 
amendment. This amendment will stop implementation of VERA, the VA's 
allocation formula, and sent it back to the drawing board so the VA can 
create a funding formula that is fair to every veteran in every state.


                             vera is unfair

  VERA unfairly pits veteran against veteran for the desperately needed 
health care services depending on which state they live in. I am 
appalled that we are discriminating against vets who served their 
country. Under VERA, seven different Veterans Integrated Service 
Networks (VISNs) encompassing 22 states, including New Jersey and New 
York, lost money because of VERA in FY 1999.
  Let me give you an example of how unfair VERA truly is. In this 
year's bill, we will increase spending on veterans' health care by $1.7 
billion. This is a goal that many of my colleagues and I have worked on 
for years. Our veterans desperately need the added funding.
  But let's examine what happens when the $1.7 billion is distributed 
according to VERA. Veterans from New Jersey and New York will not see a 
single penny of the $1.7 billion. In fact they will have their funding 
reduced by $40 million!
  How is this fair? How is this equitable? New Jersey has one of the 
oldest veterans' populations and the highest number of special needs 
veterans. The funding reduction caused by VERA is taking a tragic toll 
on the veterans of New Jersey and the Northeast.


            health services in new jersey are being reduced

  To save money, the VA has cut back on numerous services for veterans 
and instituted various managed care procedures that have the impact of 
destroying the quality of care the veterans receive. For instance, the 
VA has reduced the amount of treatment offered to those who suffer from 
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and reduced the number of medical 
personnel at various health centers.
  As a result of these cuts, there has been erosion of confidence 
between veterans and the VA. I can not describe the anger and pain I 
see in the faces of veterans in my district because of the reduction in 
health services. This erosion threatens to destroy the solemn 
commitment that this nation made to its veterans when they were called 
to duty.
  We can not allow the VA to use VERA to save money by destroying the 
health care of veterans in New Jersey. We can not allow the VA to use 
VERA to use managed care to reduce quality. And we can not allow the VA 
to use VERA to close veterans' hospitals just because they are within 
sixty miles of each other.


                               conclusion

  The bottom line is: VERA is unacceptable and must change to a fairer 
more equitable system. This amendment permits this correction.
  Although the GAO study to study VERA found that overall access to 
veterans' health care has improved they did find some glaring 
conclusions that need to be examined. The study cites:
  Although VA has made progress in improving the equity of resource 
allocations nationwide among the networks, it has done little to ensure 
that the networks fulfill the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation 
(VERA) system's promise as they allocate resources to their facilities;
  Although GAO prepared an overall assessment of access to care, 
difficulties in working with the data cast doubt on whether VA can 
perform timely and effective oversight;
  Without such information, it is difficult for them to say 
conclusively whether VA has improved veterans' equity of access to care 
and whether veterans have not been adversely affected by the many 
changes under way to reduce costs and improve productivity;
  Because of these oversights funding to northeast veterans is being 
cut.
  Let me state as firmly as possible: There can be no compromise when 
it comes to veterans' health care. The promise made to veterans must be 
kept. We must do everything in our power to ensure that veterans 
receive the best health care possible.
  Defending the Constitution of the United States on foreign soil is 
the greatest duty the nation can ask of its citizens. Our veterans 
answered the call to duty and performed it to the highest standard. We 
must keep our pomise to our veterans regardless if they live in 
Florida, Texas, Maine or New Jersey. I believe a veteran is a veteran, 
period. The VA must have the same view. I strongly urge you to support 
this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following:
  Without the $1.7 billion increase, the following VISNs would lose 
money in FY00:
  22 States lose significantly:
  VISN 1 (New England)--$28 million;
  VISN 3 (New Jersey/New York)--$40 million;
  VISN 7 (Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina)--$18 million;
  VISN 11 (Michigan, Illinois, Indiana)--$17 million;
  VISN 12 (Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin)--$16 million;
  VISN 13 (Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota)--$21 million;
  VISN 14 (Nebraska, Iowa)--$13 million;
  VISN 15 (Missouri, Illinois, Kansas)--$21 million;
  VISN 22 (California, Nevada)--$33 million.
  Source: VA.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment today, and I want to 
thank my colleagues for the work they have done on this. I also wanted 
to begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for the tremendous job under difficult 
circumstances that he has done with the overall bill.
  I am a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Chairman, 
and a Member who has a VA Medical Center in his district in Buffalo, 
New York, and also a Member who has together with other northeastern 
Members here sat down and talked with the Secretary of the VA some 2 or 
3 months ago. The simple fact is that veterans are suffering, and while 
the VERA proposal was put together to provide more equitable funding 
for our veterans and their health care around the country, the opposite 
has occurred. It clearly has not done what it set out to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of us in this chamber are more pro veteran 
than anybody else, and this should not become a question of 
regionalism, it should not become a question of geographics; it should 
be a fairness question, and my colleagues, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and others who offered the 
amendment are talking about fairness. It is a fairness question. We are 
not trying to pit geographic regions against each other.
  This strikes at the heart of fairness, and I rise in support of it. I 
believe we need to cake care of all of our country's veterans, and this 
is the way to do it, and we will support the amendment, and I ask my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  As a member of the Veterans, Affairs Committee and as a member who 
has a VA medical center in his district I have seen first hand the 
effects that this VERA model has had on veterans in the Northeast.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is, our veterans are suffering.
  Due to this VERA plan VA hospitals are unable to provide quality 
healthcare to our veterans because the funds are not there for them to 
provide the care.
  I have witnessed first hand the effects of this VERA plan.
  Veterans in my district have expressed to me how they are denied 
appointments and have to wait in long lines before a doctor at the VA 
will see them.
  These VA medical centers are understaffed and underfunded, again, a 
direct result of the VERA system.
  VERA was established to provide more equitable funding for veterans 
healthcare around the country.
  It clearly has not done that.
  Mr. Chairman, our veterans in the Northeast need help--the VERA 
system as it exists today is unfair.
  I am not against veterans in the sunbelt or the Southwest.
  I am pro-veteran, I would hope that my colleagues who are from those 
areas just mentioned would see the need for a fairer VERA system.
  We need to take care of all of our country's veterans.
  They deserve it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this member rises today in strong support 
of the Hinchey/Frelinghuysen amendment which would

[[Page H8042]]

prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation (VERA) system.
  From the time the Administration announced this new system, this 
Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA and has supported 
funding levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the 
President recommended. The new VERA system has had a very negative 
impact on Nebraska and other sparsely populated areas of the country. 
The VERA plan provides the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical 
care funding to regions across the country and employs an allocation 
formula that ties funding for each of the 22 geographic regions to the 
numbers of veterans they actually serve. While the VERA formula 
produced a very modest one percent increase in funding for this fiscal 
year, last year the VERA formula produced a 5 percent decrease, which 
resulted in $13.5 million less funding distributed to VA programs in my 
state of Nebraska, resulting in the fact that Nebraska is still 
receiving significantly less veterans funding than it did only two 
years ago.
  All members of Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, that the VA must 
provide adequate facilities for veterans all across the country 
regardless of whether they live in sparsely populated areas with 
resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals. The funding distribution 
unfairly reallocates the VA's health care budget based on a per capita 
veterans usage of facilities. Because of this formula, we have already 
been faced with the closure of a major VA medical facility in my 
district. While it is true that the number of veterans now eligible to 
be served at the Lincoln VA Hospital and other VA facilities in the 
state have decreased over the past years, we still have an obligation 
to provide care to these people who served our country during our 
greatest times of need. There must be at least a basic level of 
acceptable national infrastructure of facilities, medical personnel, 
and services for meeting the very real medical needs faced by our 
veterans wherever they live. The decrease in quality and accessibility 
of medical care for veterans who live in sparsely populated areas is 
completely unacceptable. There must be a threshold funding level for VA 
medical services in each state and region before any per-capita funding 
formula is applied.
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the Hinchey/Frelinghuysen amendment.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my opposition to the 
Hinchey amendment because of the impact it would have on veterans 
across the country and in my home state of Florida. The Hinchey 
amendment would prohibit the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation 
(VERA) that was implemented in 1997 from taking effect in fiscal year 
2000.
  The intent of VERA was to guarantee that veterans who have similar 
economic status and eligibility receive the same medical services 
regardless of where they live. Prior to VERA, veterans health care was 
based on historic use patterns even though growing numbers of veterans 
are leaving the Northeast and moving to warmer parts of the country. 
This movement has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of 
veterans moving to Florida and seeking medical care there. This rising 
volume of patients was overwhelming veterans medical facilities in the 
district I represent and without VERA hundreds of veterans who sought 
care in my district would have been turned away without receiving it.
  Many of my colleagues oppose VERA because they believe it does not 
provide a fair distribution of veterans medical care. However, the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) has already studied this issue 
extensively. In a study released in 1998 the GAO determined, ``VERA has 
improved the equity of resource allocation to networks because, 
compared with the system it replaced, it provides more comparable 
levels of resources to each network for each high-priority veteran 
served.''
  Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking a byproduct of the 
problem facing our veterans instead of focusing on the problem itself. 
The heart of the problem facing our nation's veterans is not VERA, it 
is the lack of funding provided by the Republican budget. VERA is a 
fair and equitable way to distribute funding for veterans medical care 
but there simply is not enough money to meet the growing need.
  Over the next ten years the Republican budget declines sharply from 
the fiscal year 2000 level while veterans health care costs will 
increase over 20 percent. These two facts are irreconcilable and if the 
veteran's budget is not adjusted fights like this will only intensify 
unless we all realize the Republican budget is simply inadequate. In 
closing, I urge my colleagues to reject the Hinchey amendment and 
address the real problem facing our nation's veterans, the inadequate 
funding allocation provided by the Republican budget.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by Representative Hinchey and my colleague from New Jersey, 
Representative Frelinghuysen.
  The so-called Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) is 
anything but equitable. In fact, it is having a devastating effect on 
our New Jersey veterans. The men and women who loyally answered the 
call to military service in our nation now feel forgotten. The dramatic 
reduction in funding as a result of the VERA program has resulted in 
eliminated services, reduced personnel and long waits for medical 
attention.
  Many of our states' veterans are older; in fact, New Jersey's 750,000 
veterans are the second oldest in the nation. Medical needs are much 
greater for the aging veterans population. Many require nursing home 
care or special attention for age-related conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, the veterans of my state of New Jersey supported our 
nation when we needed them. Let's not turn our backs on them at a time 
in their lives when they need our support. I urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frelinghuysen/
Hinchey amendment to prohibit the VA from expending funds to implement 
the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) formula for 
distribution of health care funds in fiscal year 2000.
  Last year, during debate on the VA-HUD appropriations bill, I spoke 
on the negative impact of VERA on the VA's ability to meet the needs of 
veterans in the Northeast. Since then, the situation has gotten worse, 
not better for the 150,000 veterans in Maine. Veterans in my state 
depend on the Togus VA hospital in Augusta for their health care. Togus 
is located in VISN 1. Last year, the VISN 1 budget shrunk by more than 
three percent. Despite this bill's $1.7 billion increase in the fiscal 
year 2000 VA health care budget, VISN 1 would only receive a $9 million 
increase. Such an increase would still be $15 million less than fiscal 
year 1998 funding. Moreover, Togus had a $5.5 million shortfall in 
fiscal year 1999.
  These cuts have forced Togus to reduce staff, causing severe strains 
on quality and timeliness of care. A reduced budget means longer wait 
times and more veterans who must travel further for care out of the 
region.
  Mr. Chairman, we have severely disabled veterans who must drive hours 
to Togus. They are forced to wait long periods of time for care because 
doctors' appointments are backlogged. Veterans are suffering and the 
staff is upset because they cannot provide the quality of care they 
have in the past.
  The VERA formula needs to be reexamined. The cost of rural health 
care delivery is higher than in more populated and urban areas, and yet 
that is not considered in the current funding formula.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress' fixation on the huge tax cut for the 
wealthy is endangering funding for veterans programs, for housing and 
for other domestic programs. We must get our priorities straight, and 
keep the promise to the veterans in this country. Support the 
Frelinghuysen/Hinchey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
will be postponed.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the debate that has been going on for the last 2 days 
on VA HUD appropriations bill has been an interesting and engaging one, 
and I could not allow this debate to be ended without making some 
observations about what has taken place here.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when the economy is doing well and many 
people are benefiting from the well-performing economy, there is still 
many people who are left behind, and they need and deserve the support 
of their government. Too many farmers and seniors wait for years to 
receive HUD rental assistance because they have nowhere else to turn.
  In the city of Los Angeles, over 160,000 persons are on the waiting 
lists for section 8 housing. The elderly, veterans, persons with 
disabilities, and the working poor make up the group on the section 8 
waiting list. Unless we provide additional resources to fund section 8 
and elderly housing, this number will continue to grow.
  Two disturbing practices are becoming common place among those 
without affordable housing. One is referred to as must-share units. In 
a must-share unit several families share one housing

[[Page H8043]]

unit. It is not uncommon to walk into one of these units and see three 
families living in a three bedroom home each with a padlock on the door 
to their bedroom and sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities.
  Second are illegal garage conversions. Here people run a water line 
and possibly some electricity into a garage and moves in a family. Tens 
of thousands of these make-shift homes are cropping up all over 
California. It should be noted that persons living in must-share units, 
as well as illegal garage conversions are the working poor, people who 
go to work every day and are doing things that the government asks of 
American citizens.
  This bill negatively affects the most vulnerable American citizens. 
Of the 12.5 million very low-income rented households living in 
severely substandard housing are paying more than one half of their 
income for rent 1.5 million are elderly, and 4.5 million are children. 
The number of adults with disabilities living in such circumstances is 
between 1.1 and 1.4 million.
  In the face of record need for affordable housing for our seniors, 
children, veterans and the working poor, Congress is set to worsen an 
already difficult predicament. This VA-HUD bill cuts $515 million in 
public housing programs alone, 250 million from the community 
development block grants, 10 million from the housing opportunities for 
people with AIDS program, 3.5 million from grants to historically black 
colleges and universities, and 1.9 million from the economic 
development initiatives.

                              {time}  1545

  As a result of these cuts, my home State of California will receive 
$151 million less than the amount requested by HUD. Specifically, the 
35th District of California that I represent will receive $4.6 million 
less than the amount requested by HUD.
  There is no fat to trim from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development's budget. Every penny is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this appropriations 
bill. I ask for a ``no'' vote because it is absolutely shameful and 
unconscionable that we would be putting at risk the most vulnerable of 
our society, at a time when this economy is functioning so well.
  We have a need for housing out there and help for people who simply 
will be on the streets without our assistance. It is unconscionable 
that we would have the waiting list for Section 8 that we have.
  I want to tell you, even though it may be California, that space, 
with people living in garages, some without running water, it is your 
area next. We have growth in this population. Of course, we are in the 
Sun Belt and we may have more growth than some other areas, but you 
will witness it too. If you but go around your districts, even those 
districts that are high-income districts, you have low-income areas in 
your districts. Many of you have poor areas that you do not even 
recognize in your districts. Even if you do not see it in your 
districts, you are still stepping over the homeless on some of the 
major thoroughfares in America.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill. It is the wrong thing for us to 
do.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 69, 
noes 354, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 399]

                                AYES--69

     Armey
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Coble
     Crane
     Danner
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Larson
     Latham
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walden
     Weldon (PA)

                               NOES--354

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento

[[Page H8044]]


     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Berry
     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Hutchinson
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1609

  Mr. McHUGH, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mr. SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COBLE, ROHRABACHER, ARMEY, BURTON of Indiana, SHERWOOD, and 
HOYER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The Chairman. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 400]

                               AYES--158

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Camp
     Capuano
     Castle
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Terry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand

                               NOES--266

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Berry
     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. VISCLOSKY and Mr. NEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________