[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 116 (Thursday, September 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8044-H8065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, due to circumstances beyond my control, I 
was unable to be present for rollcall votes 390 through 400.
  If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 
390, ``yes'' on rollcall no. 391, ``No'' on rollcall No. 392, ``yes'' 
on rollcall No. 393, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 394, ``yes'' on rollcall 
No. 395, ``no'' on rollcall No. 396, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 397, 
``yes'' on rollcall No. 398, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 399, and ``no'' on 
rollcall No. 400.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to terminate inpatient services at the Iron Mountain 
     Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iron Mountain, 
     Michigan or to close that facility.

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this 
amendment after entering into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee, regarding the 
Iron Mountain VA Medical Center in Iron Mountain, Michigan.
  I have drafted this amendment because I am greatly concerned that the 
VA considered and is considering closing and reducing this facility and 
service to the point where veterans will not be able to receive the 
care they need or so richly deserve.
  There are currently 72,000 veterans in northern Wisconsin and the 
upper peninsula of Michigan who are eligible for care at this facility. 
This facility provides important and unique services to the veterans 
throughout this region.

[[Page H8045]]

  Earlier this year, the VA announced efforts to develop a, quote, 
conceptualized plan to reengineer health services in VISN 12. There has 
been talk that part of this reengineering strategy would involve the 
reduction in the number of acute care beds in Iron Mountain from 17 to 
8, and taking those 8 remaining beds and using them merely for 
stabilization, where patients would be stabilized and then transferred 
via ambulance to Milwaukee.
  As one might imagine, the veterans in this region are worried and 
with good reason. Currently, nearly 14,000 veterans are enrolled in the 
Iron Mountain facility. This represents a 20 percent increase over last 
year. In 1998, there were a total of 1,066 admissions, 1,066 admissions 
for only 17 beds. It is obvious that these beds are badly needed and 
overutilized.
  Unfortunately, if veterans are not treated at Iron Mountain, they 
will be forced to make an ambulance ride of over 200 miles to receive 
acute care in Milwaukee. It has been estimated that 770 veterans a year 
would have to make that ambulance trip at a cost of nearly $2,000 per 
ride to receive care. We are asking the sickest, those who are in the 
greatest need, to travel hundreds of miles to receive care, and that 
their family members make a similar trip.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) what 
can be done to ensure that VISN 12 will continue to maintain their 
inpatient services at the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center in the 
future?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his 
continued concern and efforts on behalf of the veterans in his district 
and the State of Wisconsin and bringing this important issue before the 
committee's attention.
  In H.R. 2684, we provided a $1.7 billion increase for veterans 
medical care, the largest increase in history. With this increase, the 
VA will be able to continue to provide services to his veterans and 
ours.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the 
committee for their hard work this year to ensure that the VA will 
continue to provide quality health care to the veterans in my district 
and all across America.
  I also ask the chairman for his help in working against efforts in 
the future to reduce health services at the Iron Mountain facility.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again for his 
comments, and we look forward to working with him on this important 
issue.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
and others for their interest in the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center 
and thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his efforts 
on this behalf here.
  This facility is in my district. In Michigan, my congressional 
district has more veterans than anyone else. The Iron Mountain Medical 
Center is the second largest acute care facility in the patient service 
area covering an area of 25,000 square miles. So veterans from the 
upper peninsula, northern Wisconsin, and other geographic areas depend 
on a full range of services at the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center.
  Now, earlier this year, as was pointed out, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl, myself, and 
others will have joined in because they are going to cut the last acute 
care beds in this area.
  We have spoken with VA officials, and they have told us that the beds 
will not be cut. It is interesting to note that this bill does not call 
for any cuts in beds or services. Despite the last amendment, we in 
rural areas are concerned about proposed cuts. It seems like, as soon 
as the VA faces a crunch, they always look to the rural areas, and we 
are the ones to get hit first.
  So a primary concern for veterans and their families, as has been 
pointed out, is the geographic remoteness of the area and the vast 
distances that are required to travel for care. For instance, if Iron 
Mountain was closed, the next closest VA facility is in Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin. Some of my veterans would have to travel 500 miles one way 
just to get services from the VA. So not only is it an unnecessary 
hardship, but potential serious danger to their health as they are 
trying to move back and forth.
  I am pleased to note, and the way I understand it, the Veterans 
Millennium Health Care Act, H.R. 2116, contains provisions which may 
actually be favorable to rural facilities such as Iron Mountain, 
because H.R. 2116 would require the Veterans Administration to maintain 
the current level of service while at the same time encouraging long-
term reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Stupak, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Green was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin will 
continue to yield, H.R. 2116 would encourage long-term reform, improve 
access through facility realignment, eligibility reform, and enhance 
revenues.
  It is vitally important that the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center 
remain strong, and any reduction in service would be fairly detrimental 
to those who have served our country for so long.
  Again, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and all the rest who worked 
together.
  We look forward to continue to work with him to ensure our Nation's 
veterans receive the health care they earn and deserve and to ensure 
there is no reduction in services at the Iron Mountain VA center.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would just thank the Chair 
and thank the chairman of the subcommittee once again for his hard 
work, not just his pledge of support to work with me with respect to 
the VA medical facility, but on this bill, the largest increase in 
history for veterans health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would simply 
like to reiterate to the gentleman what the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak) has indicated; that when we first discovered the 
possibility of the reduction of the beds for that facility that Senator 
Kohl and Senator Feingold and Senator Levin, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I sent a letter to the VA noting the 
illogical nature of closing the remote hospital beds while we had such 
an overlap in some of our largest urban areas.
  I talked personally with the leadership of the VA; and after that 
conversation, they made it quite clear to me that they had no intention 
of closing any of those beds in that facility. Certainly this budget 
has no provision for closing those beds.
  I appreciate very much the willingness of the VA to reconsider what, 
to me, was an ill-advised approach. I do think Members of Congress have 
to be careful because it is very difficult for us to be logically 
consistent if we are voting for budgets which appear to demand overall 
reductions and then if we object when specific reductions are then made 
in either our own areas or in our own favorite programs.

                              {time}  1630

  But in this instance I am very happy that we received the response 
that we have from the VA.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to 
pick up on the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) with regard to 
the case that the gentleman has made for Iron Mountain, and certainly 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have made strong cases as members of the 
gentleman's delegation. But as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
said, it is more than illogical. It could border on hypocrisy I could 
say, that the folks on this side of the aisle

[[Page H8046]]

get up and argue for their medical centers and their clinics to stay 
open, for their services to go unimpeded, and then, when the chance is 
offered, as it was yesterday on at least eight occasions, for Members 
to vote to allow the funding of the VA, which is vastly underfunded, 
when my colleague had the chance to vote on that, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) voted no.
  So to come here and argue for a VA center in a particular district, 
to come up and argue for that, but to vote no on additional funding for 
the VA and then go back home and say how much you fought for your VA, 
borders a little bit, I will say on the illogical to keep the same 
frame of reference of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), in earlier debate I 
think, said very eloquently if we move funds to do what different 
individuals want to do with their particular VA hospitals means that we 
will cut quality here, that we will cut services there, because we do 
not have enough money in the VA budget. We are underfunded in VA health 
care by at least $1.5 billion in spite of the plus-up that the 
subcommittee gave.
  So unless the gentleman is willing on his side of the aisle to join 
us in raising the budget to the $3 billion that the veterans of this 
Nation came up with, then I think that the other side has some soul 
searching to do with these kinds of amendments.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I would ask him if he was aware that this bill increases veterans' 
medical care by $1.7 billion?
  Mr. FILNER. Reclaiming my time under my reservation, Mr. Chairman, I 
would respond to the chairman that I am very aware, and I would ask in 
return, is the gentleman aware that the independent budget of 300 
veterans' organizations around this country said that the minimum, the 
absolute minimum, to keep our VA health system going and not to have 
closures like the gentleman wants to protest about in his district, 
like I would not want in my own district, that that budget asks for 
$3.2 billion for veterans' health care? So the gentleman gave one-half 
of what was needed. And we are going to have these issues all through 
the next year based on the budget.
  I agree with the chairman when he called the budget the President's 
budget plus 1.7. I think it might be called the Walsh budget minus 1.5. 
That is, it is higher than the President's; but it is lower than what 
it should be. And the gentleman's Members are going to come up every 
day in the coming session and say please do not close my hospital.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. In the event that we do provide this 1.7 increase in this 
bill, is the gentleman prepared to support that $1.7 billion increase? 
Because if he does not he is then, in effect, supporting the 
President's level of level funding.
  Mr. FILNER. No, I am supporting the independent budget of 3.2. I am 
going to vote against the bill on the floor because it is insufficient. 
And everybody in this House ought to vote against it so we do not have 
the problems that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) raises, and 
that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) is about to raise, and 
that we had raised earlier by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). We 
are going to have colloquies from 435 districts about closing VA 
facilities unless we pass a reasonable bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ----. None of the funds provided by this Act may be 
     used to close any Department of Veterans Affairs medical 
     center.

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a very simple 
amendment. This amendment would prohibit the VA from closing any VA 
hospitals during fiscal year 2000.
  We are in the midst of a great deal of change in the way the VA 
provides medical care to our veterans. The health care being provided 
by VA medical centers is moving from an inpatient-based hospital system 
to more of an outpatient-based clinical system. The VA is reacting to 
the same forces that are changing our private health care. There is a 
great deal of uncertainty for our veterans. I am constantly hearing 
from veterans expressing their concerns over the potential closing of 
hospitals.
  To these concerns of our veterans Secretary West has responded. In 
numerous speeches before veterans service organizations this year, and 
in meetings with the New York congressional delegation, Secretary West 
has made a pledge to keep all VA hospitals open throughout the year 
2000. With this in mind, it is prudent to assist the Secretary in his 
efforts and put a temporary hold on the closing of any VA hospitals 
until October 2000.
  In recent weeks, the GAO came out with a report citing their findings 
of underused, inefficient VA hospitals wasting our VA dollars. It seems 
to me that the wise course would be to allow the VA to review and 
examine the facilities in question before any long-term decisions are 
made. The VA has assets and it has needs. We must take advantage of 
those assets, namely the existing infrastructure, and use them to help 
address the growing needs of our aging veteran population's needs.
  The GAO has noted that these hospitals are antiquated and do not 
measure up to current standards. That is no fault of the hospitals; it 
is the result of a lack in proper funding for infrastructure and 
improvements. Congress has already passed initiatives that can assist 
the VA in realizing the potential of these underused facilities through 
the Enhanced Use Lease Authority. While this authority is in need of 
improvement, it is the right idea and we must ensure that any closure 
of hospitals maximizes the use of this authority.
  One way this could be used is to lease the space to provide, for 
example, much-needed long-term geriatric care to our veterans. They 
represent the fastest growing need for our veteran population. Over the 
next 21 years, the veteran population over 85 years of age is expected 
to increase 333 percent. This demonstrates an imperative situation. Let 
us not close down one of the greatest assets of the VA system, namely, 
its infrastructure. Let us make it work for our veterans.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully consider 
these issues and support this amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the arguments the gentlewoman just made were extremely 
good. I support the gentlewoman's amendment. And I need to be nice to 
her, since she represents my daughter up in Bedford, New York. So I 
thank her for her representation. But, once again, I cannot fail to 
point out that the logic of the budget that the majority party is 
pushing and that the gentlewoman voted for and refused to amend is 
pushing toward exactly the situation that she wants to prevent.
  I am with the gentlewoman. I think we should do exactly what the 
gentlewoman said. And she has laid out a rational, objective policy for 
the VA to follow. Unfortunately, we are putting them in the position, 
by underfunding them, that they are going to have to take positions 
that none of us will like when it comes to health care. And as the 
gentlewoman said earlier in regard to the debate on another matter, if 
they do not do this, they are going to cut quality or cut services. 
Something has got to give if they do not have enough money, and 
assuming they are using the money efficiently and assuming they are 
using the money to the best degree. And we all have to question that, 
and the gentlewoman's amendment asks for that.
  But I will tell my colleague that, again, I find it highly illogical, 
bordering on hypocrisy, that the majority party puts forward these 
amendments to stop the closure of Iron Mountain, to put a clinic in the 
district of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), to stop the closing 
of VA hospitals anywhere; and yet when they are given the opportunity 
to vote additional funds,

[[Page H8047]]

not to break the budget, not to be doing something irresponsible, but 
to put in what the veterans of this Nation have said is absolutely 
essential to keep the quality of our VA system going, they vote no. And 
then my colleagues are on TV and they are back home saying that they 
are fighting for their veterans. Yet on all the procedural motions, not 
to mention the substantive motions, that will allow the majority to 
really back up what they are saying with the money to cover it, they 
vote no.
  So I am going to continue to point out this illogic. I am going to 
continue to point out that the dynamics of my colleague's own budget 
undercuts what she is trying to do. If the gentlewoman's amendment 
passes, which I hope it does, then, as she said earlier in her 
comments, they are going to give way somewhere else. So the 
gentlewoman's constituents are going to face a lack of quality of 
services or a lack of some specialist or other service. And until the 
majority party votes to increase this funding, we are going to have the 
positions that the gentlewoman is arguing for.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I hear what my colleague is saying; 
however, I think it is very important that we focus on a couple of 
things that I think are of importance.
  One is that the President's budget asked for only $200 million, 
whereas this bill puts in $1.7 billion. It is the largest increase that 
we have ever had.
  Mr. FILNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we have heard that. We 
stipulated yesterday and for the last 2 months that the President's 
budget was irresponsible and not good policy. We are not passing here 
the President's budget. Throw that out. My colleagues cannot keep 
answering my criticisms and the country's criticisms that they do 
better than the President. The President did lousy. This is our budget 
and this budget is lousy.
  This budget underfunds VA health care by $1.5 billion, and until we 
correct that, the amendments that the gentlewoman is offering is going 
to be of little help.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my colleague's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York, who has put in so 
much time and energy into her staunch defense of veterans medical care 
for her district and for the rest of the State of New York. I think she 
has done it in a responsible way, unlike some others, who have talked 
about advocacy for the veterans and then offered funds that were not 
available; offered budgetary gimmicks to present the image that there 
are funds available for veterans health care that are not actually 
there.
  There has been a lot of discussion today about the independent 
budget. If this budget was so good, why did the American Legion, the 
largest veterans service organization in America, not support it? They 
did not. But they did support this budget.
  The independent budget was presented by veterans advocacy groups at 
the beginning of the budget process as a marker. Blue sky, best 
possible scenario, this is what we would like. How many people, how 
many organizations have not done that in a discussion or in a 
negotiation? They ask for the sky, and they get what they need. And 
that is exactly what this budget provides; what the Veterans 
Administration needs to provide quality health care in America for our 
veterans.
  Who am I talking about when I say that the veterans organizations 
support this bill? The American Legion supports this bill. The Veterans 
of Foreign Wars supports this level of funding. Noncommissioned 
Officers Association, Retired Enlisted Men's and Women's Association, 
the Military Coalition, the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Who 
would know better the importance of medical care for veterans than the 
Military Order of the Purple Heart? They endorse this bill. Jewish War 
Veterans, Gold Star Wives. Who would know better than a Gold Star wife 
or a Gold Star mother of the importance of veterans medical care than 
these women? They support this bill.
  It is easy to wave a budget that was a negotiating position that was 
created months ago before the rubber met the road in terms of this 
budgetary process.

                              {time}  1645

  Fleet Reserve Association, Reserve Officers Association, National 
Military and Veterans Alliance, Retired Officers Association, Air Force 
Sergeants Association, Catholic War Veterans, National Association for 
Uniformed Services, Korean War Veterans Association.
  Who are the experts? Who are the veterans? Who speaks for the 
veterans? I think the veterans.
  Let them speak for themselves. And they have. Yes, the independent 
budget was presented as a negotiating piece. But if my colleagues ask 
these organizations what is the right number, they are going to tell 
them and they have told us $1.7 billion is the right number.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) has produced a document 
that shows how each and every VISN around the country is affected 
positively by this bill. We have to proffer support for this level of 
funding. Those who would not vote for this bill do not get off scot 
free. There is a price, and the price is they go home and they say to 
their veterans, I could not support that bill. And they say, Why? We 
needed that money. We needed that $1.7 billion.
  And they are going to hold our feet to the fire if we do not support 
that level of funding. They know what is real and what is not real more 
than most others do, and that $3-billion figure is not real. The $1.7 
billion is real money for real people for real programs and real health 
care.
  Getting back to the initial amendment, I reluctantly cannot support 
the amendment. I respectfully ask the gentlewoman to withdraw it. I 
know the VA in her district faces some difficult challenges. It does 
all over in the Northeast and the West, the Midwest. We heard that 
today. But I think we can address those issues outside of this 
amendment.
  I promise to work with her and other Members representing VISN 3. We 
are going to make sure our staff is engaged with the leadership in VISN 
3 to try to resolve these issues regarding her concerns.
  So I would complete my comments by asking the gentlewoman to withdraw 
the amendment if she could.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kelly amendment and in 
opposition to the proposed VA-HUD budget. I do so for a number of 
reasons.
  First of all, I have some serious concerns about the proposed 
benefits for veterans, especially in the area of health care and 
housing. Almost every 3 or 4 months there is a discussion, there is a 
rumor, there is a report that one of the Veterans' Administration 
hospitals in my district is going to close. This raises the level of 
uncertainty among veterans in terms of whether or not they are going to 
be able to get the care that they so rightly deserve.
  Neither do I believe that now is the time to decrease funding for 
space, environmental protection, FEMA, or the National Science 
Foundation.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I take this time also to express strong 
opposition to the proposed cuts in the budget for HUD. This bill 
proposes to cut $945 million less for HUD housing than was available in 
fiscal year 1999. This bill provides for $982 million less than 
requested.
  No funding is provided for new vouchers to provide assistance to 
additional families. It cuts public housing modernization by 15 
percent, drug elimination grants by 6 percent, Hope VI, and generally 
distressed housing revitalization by 8 percent, housing opportunities 
for people with AIDS by 4 percent, community development block grant 
monies by 6 percent, community development block grant loan guarantees 
by 14 percent, Brownfields clean-up and development 20 percent less, 
lead-based paint abatement 13 percent less, fair housing activities 2 
percent less, and the HOME program 1 percent less.
  Under this bill, Chicago, Illinois, the center of the Midwest, will 
lose $6,982,000; 527 jobs; 442 fewer housing units for low-income 
families; 77 fewer housing units for people with AIDS; 1,000 vouchers 
for Section 8; 33,000

[[Page H8048]]

fewer home buyers. It takes away support services for 43,000 homeless 
people. Thirty thousand homeless people will have no emergency beds, 
and 6,500 people with AIDS will be without services. And 212,500 people 
overall will not have any aid which they could get without these cuts.
  There is indeed a rental housing crisis in America, and this bill 
falls $1.6 billion short of U.S. needs. And without these greatly 
needed 100,000 Section 8 vouchers, matters will become significantly 
worse.
  So, Mr. Chairman, you see, this bill, while well-meaning, while 
thorough efforts have been made to analyze it, while serious attention 
has been given to it, the real fact of the matter is that it undercuts 
the very basic needs and services of those constituents that it was 
designed to help.
  So I would urge that we go back ultimately to the drawing board. It 
does not provide veterans with the care that they need. It does not 
provide the level of assurance that veterans need to have.
  So again, I reiterate my support for the Kelly amendment and urge its 
passage.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a short dialogue 
with the chairman of the committee if I may.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern is closing of the hospitals because I see 
the hospitals as being a piece of the assets that the VA actually owns. 
I look at an aging veterans population that is strongly in need of 
support in terms of assisted living and skilled nursing and that type 
of care; and I am concerned that if we step down these assets, which 
are currently full care, acute care hospitals, that we are closing a 
possibility, closing a doorway for those elderly veterans.
  I would like to ask the chairman of the committee if he would help me 
and work with me through addressing these assets that we have in trying 
to use them in a better way. I think it is very important that the 
enhanced use lease authority be addressed in this manner and used in 
this manner.
  I think that I could perhaps comfortably withdraw this amendment if I 
can get that kind of a pledge from the committee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would pledge to the gentlewoman that we 
would make it a priority to work with her to make sure that the facts 
and figures on services and properties and everything within each 
individual VISN were provided for review to make sure that these assets 
are being dealt with and used wisely and in a proper way and, as I said 
earlier, providing staff to help to resolve some of the issues in VISN 
3. I pledge that support to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I ask 
that there be an ability for those of us who are not on the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs and for Congress as a whole to have an opportunity 
to see more clearly, with more transparency, some of the ways that the 
VA is using money within each individual VISN.
  At present, I am not able to get those figures, and that also 
inhibits my ability to ascertain how carefully the money that is being 
allocated is being used by the regional visions.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, let me 
be brief because I know the gentleman is waiting to reclaim his time 
and it is precious.
  We have requested that report as soon as it may be available to us. 
We will share it with the gentlewoman and work through those issues 
with her.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, if 
all options could be explored, that would include the enhanced use 
authority, then I would be willing to ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon) be given an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise at this point to 
speak directly to the issue of what we are doing in this veterans 
budget under the leadership of the subcommittee chairman. We are 
increasing veterans health care spending by $1.7 billion. That 
represents an increase of almost 10 percent.
  One of the concerns that I actually have with this very generous 
increase is I do not know if the VA will be able to spend all this 
money efficiently. I would not be surprised if they have some of the 
money left over. That is a huge increase for the agency to absorb.
  By giving them these additional funds, there will not be any 
hospitals closed. If anything, what will happen is the badly 
underserved areas like the district that I represent, the whole State 
of Florida, and what the gentleman from California is saying is that, 
no, a 20-percent increase is necessary and anything short of a 20-
percent increase is underfunding.
  Frankly, I believe that position is ridiculous and the chairman of 
the subcommittee has clearly spelled out that the veterans 
organizations are behind this. I think this is a very clear statement 
that the Republican Party, the Republicans in Congress, support our 
veterans and we are giving a very, very generous increase in this 
budget to veterans affairs. And to hold out a pie-in-the-sky number of, 
no, $3 billion and anything short of that is underfunding I believe is 
ludicrous.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, let me first 
say to the gentleman from Florida and the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, the $3 billion figure is not my figure. It comes from a 
process that was initiated and sustained by the major veterans 
organizations in this Nation. They came up with a professional budget 
that was designed to accommodate the basic needs of the health care 
system, needs that had been left unmet for the last 5 years.
  When the gentleman from Florida says that he doubts that they would 
be able to use the funds, I would refer him to the Alzheimer's patients 
who are being released from hospitals because there are not the funds 
to keep them. I will refer the gentleman to hepatitis C victims, almost 
2 million of them, who are suffering from a potentially fatal disease 
with no money to meet their health care needs. I would refer the 
gentleman to the Persian Gulf War illness victims who cannot get either 
their treatment or the explanation for their illness in any respectful 
fashion because there are no funds to do that.
  Every veteran in this Nation will tell us that there are needs that 
can be met, and I suspect that the veterans organizations think that 
the $1.7 billion that the chairman should be commended for achieving, 
and I do not understate that achievement, I say to the chairman, given 
the numbers they have to work with. And please take my criticism as of 
the process and not of my colleague, because I think he and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) did an incredibly good job 
in plussing that up.
  But I would argue that it is still insufficient given the needs and 
given the aging population and given the new areas that we have 
discovered that need to be dealt with.
  I would remind the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), who is the chairman of the subcommittee, this $1.7 billion 
plus-up which comes out of the Republican budget resolution rests on a 
down-minus, if I can use that word, over the next 10 years. That is, 
the VA budget will start decreasing based on their numbers and for the 
biggest decrease in our history.

[[Page H8049]]

                              {time}  1700

  So we have not sufficiently funded this budget, and I would say to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), I suspect that if he gave 
those organizations a vote between this budget and my budget, mine 
would win. We would have letters supporting that.
  So once again, I say to the veterans of this Nation, this Congress is 
poised to pass a bill that does not meet the health care needs, does 
not meet the commitment and benefits that we have promised; and we 
should vote it down and say to the veterans, we can do better.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection to the unanimous 
consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Kleczka

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kleczka:
       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 Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency to promulgate final national primary drinking water 
     standards for Radium 226 and 228 under the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act.

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, as the reading of the amendment indicates, 
this amendment would prevent the EPA from using fiscal year 2000 funds 
to promulgate a final rule regarding radium in drinking water.
  The EPA, I am told, intends to issue a rule later in the year 2000 
using a five pico curies per liter standard, the smallest amount 
measurable.
  This issue has been addressed by Congress before. In 1996, Congress 
required EPA to delay a proposed standard for radon and radium until 
the National Research Council prepared a risk assessment on both 
substances.
  At that point, I should add, the level talked about by or discussed 
by the EPA was a 20 pico curies level in drinking water.
  The EPA finally did complete the study on radon but failed to study 
radium. The EPA cites the study on airborne radon as evidence that 
exceeding the level of radium in water beyond five pico curies per 
liter may result in adverse health effects.
  The EPA is moving ahead on radium even though the study's authors are 
careful to note in the findings that, and I quote, ``Whether these 
considerations also hold for other carcinogens such as X-rays was not 
an issue that was addressed by this committee.''
  This rule will affect over 600 communities nationwide. A water 
utility in my district and the district of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) estimates that it would cost rate payers about $40 
million to build a treatment facility that will enable them to comply 
with EPA's mandates.
  What we ask through adoption of this amendment is for the EPA to 
gather the scientific data on the health effects of radium in our water 
and to determine at what level the standard should be set.
  This can be done by conducting two studies: a bone cancer risk study, 
which is a population-based study that will assess the association of 
radium in drinking water with the occurrence of bone cancer; and a 
second study, a cellular biomarker study which will answer the question 
of whether drinking water exceeding the five pico curies per liter 
level will cause harmful effects in the blood cells of water drinkers.
  I urge support for this amendment, which will prohibit the EPA from 
formulating a rule about the effects of drinking water containing low 
levels of radium before our water utilities spend millions on what 
could be a nonexistent problem.
  Congress asked for a risk assessment before. Evidently we must insist 
on this study again.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, obviously, is a fairly important 
development in this bill and it takes the form of what most people 
would refer to as a rider, legislative rider. The consequences of the 
amendment are not clear, intended or unintended consequences. There 
just does not seem to be enough information available right now, at 
least for this Member, to make a determination as to whether or not 
this is a good idea or a bad idea, whether it helps or hurts the bill.
  I know some other Members have expressed some concerns about this; 
not any clear opposition to it but just concerns about what this will 
eventuate for EPA and for our communities.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) has shown some real 
sincere concern for his communities. I have been addressed by some of 
my communities about the fact that some of these regulations the EPA 
lays on the communities are expensive; it puts a huge burden on them 
and I understand those concerns.
  What I would ask, and I would be happy to yield time to the gentleman 
for debate purposes, to ask if he would consider withdrawing this 
amendment with the thought that as we go into conference there might be 
a way to address this issue in a less restrictive way, possibly some 
report language, something to that effect.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say I very much understand what 
motivates my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), to 
offer this amendment.
  I have not the foggiest idea whether the standard being proposed or 
even contemplated by the agency is the correct one. My problem is that 
I have stood many times on this floor and resisted congressional 
efforts to, on the basis of a very short debate, reach what, in 
essence, is a scientific conclusion to prohibit an agency charged with 
protecting public health from taking whatever action they think is 
necessary to protect the public health.
  It seems to me the best way to approach things is to try to work 
together and go to the agency and to insist informally that they 
produce hard evidence that what they are doing makes sense.
  My concern with the gentleman's amendment goes to simply one word: 
prohibit. I do not know enough to either prohibit or to encourage what 
they are doing, and I would urge that the gentleman follow the advice 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). I think that is the most 
constructive way to try to work together to get the right answer. None 
of us want to see municipalities or anybody else have to incur expenses 
that are not necessary. Even though in this instance it is my own 
State, I don't feel comfortable in, in essence, making a legislative 
judgment about a scientific matter until we ourselves know what we are 
talking about.
  At this point, the gentleman from Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) 
may be comfortable in assessing what the agency is doing, but I know 
this Member is not.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with both the chairman of the subcommittee and 
my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I do not know 
what the correct level of radium in the water should be.
  However, I should point out to the Members that at one point the EPA 
was saying that level should be 20 pico Curies, which is a measurement 
of radio activity in water. Now they are coming by to the various 
communities saying that level should be five.
  Well, Congress some years ago in 1996 asked them for a study and to 
give us some hard evidence. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
says we should have some hard evidence so we can make that decision. I 
agree totally with that statement. We already asked for that and the 
EPA has not been forthcoming. Yes, they did the study on radon and they 
linked the radium standard to a radon study, which is totally 
inappropriate.
  So I agree with the chairman that hopefully we can work on some 
report language. I was told just a few hours ago that now the EPA was 
not going to

[[Page H8050]]

issue this regulation, this rule, in fiscal year 2000 anyway.
  My information coming to the debate on this was it was going to be 
later in the year 2000; and later in 2000, in my book, could be August, 
could be September, could be before the fiscal year. So if, in fact, it 
is true that this rule is not going to come down before the year 2001, 
I think the amendment can be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walsh was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, if in fact the rule is not going to be 
promulgated until the year 2001, clearly that would give the EPA an 
opportunity to provide for a study, one of the two studies that I think 
I cited or any other study so they can come before Congress and say now 
the level should be five, 7\1/2\, 10, or whatever it ends up being and 
we will abide by that, but we do not have that before us.
  So hopefully between now and the conference committee on this bill we 
can at least ask, gently ask, the EPA would they please do the study 
that the Congress asked for in 1996, so the other communities involved 
can finally make a judgment.
  Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that we are going to work 
together on some type of language, I would withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kleczka) for his wisdom and for his willingness to work with us on this 
issue. I think it is the proper approach; and we will work together on 
it, and I appreciate it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kleczka-
Sensenbrenner amendment. This amendment would prohibit the EPA from 
using funds to promulgate a final rule on drinking water standards for 
radium that is not based on sound science. In 1991, the EPA proposed a 
standard for radium in drinking water of 20 pico curries per liter 
(pCi/L). However, the EPA now intends to mandate a far more stringent 
level of 5 pCi/L. This apparently arbitrary restriction was recommended 
before proper scientific evidence to support it was gathered.
  To defend this restriction, the EPA cites a study on airborne radon 
by the National Research Council as supporting evidence that radium in 
drinking water beyond 5 pCi/L may have negative health effects despite 
the fact that the authors of this study state that their work did not 
consider the effects of carcinogens other than radon, including radium. 
Promoting regulations that are not based on sound science is becoming a 
pattern at the EPA. The Agency has mandated that parts of the country 
use reformulated gasoline, including gasoline with the additive MTBE. 
MTBE pollutes ground and surface water supplies rendering it unusable 
for drinking water. Recently, a National Research Council report found 
that oxygenates, including MTBE do little to clean up our air. An EPA 
Blue Ribbon Panel found that MTBE is seriously damaging our nation's 
water. Judging by these reports, the EPA has done serious damage to our 
water, while doing very little for our air. That's bad science.
  The EPA has often supported the need to regulate before the science 
is complete, arguing that the risk of doing nothing is too great even 
when the cost of their proposals is incredibly high. In the global 
climate change debate, the EPA supports proposals based on shaky 
science would cause gasoline prices to rise by 50 cents a gallon and 
household energy costs to rise $900 to $1,000 a year according to the 
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Association.
  Similarly, if promulgated, the EPA's revised radium rule would be 
incredibly costly. A water utility in both my District and Congressman 
Kleczka's District estimates that it would cost $70 million to build 
and operate a facility to comply with the 5 pCi/L restriction. The cost 
for the new facility would be passed on to utility consumers. This 
water utility estimates that its rates may need to be raised to four 
times their current level. The cost-hike will hurt businesses and 
families alike. Average homeowners may see their water utility costs 
rise $200 to $800 per year.
  This is not a problem isolated to Wisconsin. In fact, 25 states have 
water utilities that are above the 5 pCi/L level. The costs that this 
rule would impose on my district would be duplicated many-fold across 
the country.
  The EPA should closely study the direct human health implications of 
radium in drinking water before imposing such a costly regulation. This 
amendment will provide time for the EPA to conduct these necessary 
tests. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment, knowing full well I will be back next year.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy if he would 
do so.
  I appreciate the opportunity to work with the chairman as part of the 
negotiations on this bill in order to obtain a one-time emergency 
funding designation for an important project in my district. The Los 
Angeles County sanitation districts urgently need funds to replace a 
sewer line beneath the Santa Clara River in my district.
  Following the El Nino storms in the winter of 1998, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency declared Los Angeles County a disaster 
area. While the sewer lines have not yet leaked, storm-related erosion 
in the river bed did cause significant damage to the lines. Further 
erosions may very well cause the rupture of the lines releasing up to 8 
million gallons of raw sewage per day into the Santa Clara River and 
eventually the Pacific Ocean.
  To permanently solve this problem, the sanitation districts have 
proposed a sound, one-time engineering solution that involves moving 
the pipelines deeper underground. This proposal is the best solution, 
both from an engineering standpoint and from an environmental 
standpoint as well.
  Unfortunately, both FEMA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
disagree on the manner to solve this problem, leaving it up to Congress 
to fill the void and protect both the residents and the environment of 
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
  I appreciate the work of the chairman to date on this legislation and 
look forward to working with him to obtain a solution to this issue as 
the legislation moves along in the legislative process.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon) for his comments and his cooperation in this project. I know of 
his deep concern for the safety and well being of his constituents. We 
recognize the importance of this project and the need to obtain funding 
to resolve it before winter storms further damage the sewer line. I 
look forward to working with the gentleman to see if indeed we can find 
a solution as this legislation proceeds. I pledge my cooperation with 
him.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weygand

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weygand:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . It is the sense of congress that, along with 
     health care, housing, education, and other benefits, the 
     presence of an honor guard at a veteran's funeral is a 
     benefit that a veteran has earned, and, therefore, the 
     executive branch should provide funeral honor details for the 
     funerals of veterans when requested, in accordance with law.

  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have discussed 
this with the subcommittee chairman and with the ranking member as 
well. As we all know, we have been discussing very important benefits 
to veterans last night and today, benefits with regard to education, 
particularly with regard to health care; but perhaps one of the most 
critical and important benefits to veterans is that that is given to 
their family and the honor that they give to those veterans at the time 
of their burial.
  We all in this chamber have heard many different stories about the 
lack of an honor guard at a veteran's funeral when requested. We have 
heard stories about sometimes they do not show up. Other times we have 
heard stories where they are actually leaving before the funeral party 
actually comes to the burial site.
  I think it is a disaster and a catastrophe that veterans, after 
having served and provided us with great service for many, many years, 
that unfortunately we do not sometimes provide the necessary honor 
guard at their burial. So I ask that we include this sense

[[Page H8051]]

of Congress at the end of the bill. The ranking member and the 
subcommittee chairman have talked to me about it, and we have crafted 
language.
  I want to, first of all, thank the ranking member's staff for helping 
us with the language, and also I want to thank the chairman who has 
agreed to this amendment, I believe, with regard to this language. I 
also want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), who could not be here tonight who is also a cosponsor of this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1715

  This amendment is something that many of the families and veterans 
are looking for because indeed at their final hour we should not forget 
them, we should not ever forget the service that they have provided to 
all of us, and I hope that this will be passed.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount provided for ``National 
     Science Foundation--Research and Related Activities'', 
     increasing the amount provided for ``National Science 
     Foundation--Major Research Equipment'', increasing the amount 
     provided for ``National Science Foundation--Education and 
     Human Resources'', and reducing each amount provided in this 
     Act (other than for the National Science Foundation) that is 
     not required to be provided by a provision of law, by 
     $156,524,000, $33,500,000, $40,000,000, and 0.354 percent, 
     respectively.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
increase the appropriations for the National Science Foundation. I must 
begin by commending the subcommittee chairman in dealing with a very 
difficult budget and commend him for the good work he has done on it. I 
was opposed to the allocation given to this subcommittee. I felt at the 
time it was granted that it was far too small, and we would end up with 
the type of difficulties we have encountered here. It is my hope that 
during the rest of the appropriations process this allocation will be 
increased.
  What I wish to point out here, and it is extremely important, is the 
importance of scientific research to the future economic growth of this 
Nation as well as furthering basic knowledge of our universe and all 
that it contains. Furthermore, I want to discuss the importance of 
science and math education in this Nation.
  Let me point out some of the problems. I have here a graph which 
shows that United States funding has been decreasing compared to some 
other countries. The national nondefense R&D as a percentage of gross 
domestic product is now lower in this Nation than it is in Japan and 
Germany, and the rate at which Japan is increasing is greater than our 
rate. The main difficulty of this is that, as is currently estimated, 
over half of the economic development of this Nation comes from 
developments resulting from research in science and technology, and if 
we do not do this research in science and technology, we are ruining 
the seed corn for our future economic growth; we are also doing a great 
disservice to our children and grandchildren by doing that.
  Let me give a few examples. The Internet is, of course, one obvious 
result which rose out of basic research in math, computer science, 
electronics and physics over the past several decades. Everyone today 
knows how valuable the Internet is and how it is contributing to 
economic growth.
  Another example is magnetic resonance imaging, which has its roots 
back in the 1950s when I was a graduate student in physics at the 
University of California. Today we cannot imagine dealing with many 
difficult health problems without an MRI machine.
  Also consider lasers, again a development based on research done 40 
years ago, resulting in a multi, multi-billion dollar industry 
developed from a small amount of research funding. In summary, we must 
continue our research efforts if we are going to maintain our economic 
growth and continue to be a world leader.
  Furthermore, the funding for major research equipment has been cut in 
this budget, and that is very unfortunate because this funding provides 
the tools with which scientists make discoveries.
  Now on to math and science education; that is a sad tale. A few years 
ago, we completed the third international mathematics science study and 
found that the United States is near the bottom of all the developed 
countries in the ability of its high-school graduates to understand and 
use math and science. Near the bottom! And yet we maintain that we are 
the leader of the world in science and technology. Our potential for 
the future is hurt very badly by not having an adequate math and 
science education system. Once again, the National Science Foundation 
plays a major role in improving our education, and we have to provide 
them funds for that.
  My amendment does not seek extravagant funding, it simply brings the 
NSF budget up to the level which has been recommended by the Committee 
on Science in the authorization bill that it has passed. That is 
certainly reasonable. However, the appropriation bill before us 
actually reduces the amount of money going to the National Science 
Foundation, the first time in decades that the National Science 
Foundation budget will be reduced. My amendment will bring it up to an 
appropriate level, and I would very much like to see this amendment 
adopted.
  At the same time, as I have indicated, I recognize the difficulty the 
chairman of the subcommittee has had in reaching appropriate funding 
levels for the National Science Foundation. Therefore I do not plan to 
pursue this amendment at this point, but I would like to engage the 
chairman in a very brief interchange. My intent is to withdraw this 
amendment, but I would certainly appreciate it if the chairman would 
first recognize the worthy direction this amendment outlines.
  I know that he would like to increase the funding of the National 
Science Foundation, and I hope that he can give us assurances that, as 
we go through the appropriations process, not only in the House but 
also in the Senate, the conference committee and negotiating with the 
White House, he will consider this request. I would very much 
appreciate an expression of support on the part of the subcommittee 
chairman that he will seek to meet the goals I have outlined in my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that this subcommittee 
considers National Science Foundation a high priority. Everyone has 
recognized the difficulties within this bill. One of the difficult 
decisions we made was to reduce NSF by just 1 percent below the 1999 
level. Now that is a cut; there is no question. But no other account in 
this bill except for VA medical care was treated as well as NSF. In 
fact, research at NSF was actually increased by $8.5 million relative 
to 1999.
  Now I know that does not comfort the gentleman because he is one of 
the leaders in the Congress in terms of scientific research. He has 
been a spokesman and a stalwart for research. This subcommittee 
understands the plight that we placed NSF in, and I assure the 
gentleman that this is a priority, that if there is any way as we go 
through the process that we can provide some additional funds for NSF 
we will, and we will call upon him to help us to make that happen and 
to provide us some direction as to where those fund should go.
  I cannot make any ironclad assurances other than that he will have 
our cooperation in the event that that occurs.
  Mr. EHLERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the 
assurances of the subcommittee chairman. I do want to comment on one 
factor he alluded to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ehlers was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)

[[Page H8052]]

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) that the $8.5 million increase he indicated 
is in the research and related activities line item, and that increase 
was wiped out by the Nadler amendment which was adopted yesterday. So 
we are now down to zero increase there; and, in fact, the overall NSF 
budget, because of the decreases in major research equipment and 
education and human resources funding, is reduced a net 1 percent in 
this appropriation bill at this point. I do thank him for his 
assurances that he will seek to correct this as we go through the 
process, and I pledge to help him.
  Mr. Chairman, on that note, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 94, after line 3, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 424. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS--Departmental 
     Administration--Grants for Construction of State Extended 
     Care Facilities'', by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--Chemical Safety and Hazard 
     Investigation Board--Salaries and Expenses'', and by reducing 
     the amount made available for ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--
     Environmental Protection Agency--Office of Inspector 
     General'', by $7,000,000, $2,000,000, and $5,000,000, 
     respectively.

  Mr. TANCREDO (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 
Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say that it is a 
tribute to the work of this committee and to the subcommittee and its 
chairman that it has been very difficult to find the necessary offsets 
to do what we hope to do in this amendment, and that is to increase the 
amount for State extended-care facilities program by $7 million. We 
are, however, proposing to do that, and we do recognize the commitment 
of the committee, and I want to once again say that it was a very 
difficult task.
  I am not here asking for more money. I recognize fully well that the 
total bill is a very rich bill considering what he had available to him 
and considering what we had available to us and what the committee had 
available to work with. It is our hope to convince both the committee 
and the other Members of the Congress, of the House of Representatives, 
that we need to shift the priorities to a certain extent, to a very 
small extent, totaling again as I said only $7 million into the State 
extended-care facilities program. These are the nursing homes that we 
build across the country, and these are facilities that, by the way, 
are built with State matching funds, so it is a bigger bang for the 
buck that we get for this.
  The President's budget suggested only a $40 million appropriations 
level. The committee quite appropriately increased that dramatically. 
In fact, increased it a hundred percent, increased it to $80 million. 
That is still $10 million below last year's level, and therefore we are 
concerned. We are concerned because 36 percent of all veterans who are 
over the age of 65, and that number is expected to increase 
exponentially over the next 8 years. We are concerned that there are 
25.2 million veterans as of July 1, 1998 of whom 19.3 million have 
served during at least one period defined as, quote, war time, 
concerned that in 2010 over half of the veterans population will be 
over the age of 62.
  An increasing in age of most veterans means additional demands for 
medical services for eligible veterans as aging brings on chronic 
conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. A 
third of all the veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's 
veterans health services. At the current pace of construction, we will 
not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans extended care needs.
  This is a cost share program, as I mentioned, with the State, so 
money that goes into this account is multiplied by the State's 
commitment to build and run the facility. Last year, as I mentioned, 
the House and Senate approved $90 million for the State extended 
facilities construction program, so this is the present bill. It 
anticipates a $10 million reduction below that.
  In truth, even if our amendment is successful in restoring at least 
$7 million of the funding approaching last year's level, it still may 
be not enough to meet the actual need for construction. Unfortunately, 
we still remain $15 million short of the funding that the State 
associations of veterans nursing homes say they need to meet 
construction deadlines.
  This amendment will be offset by minor reductions in the funding for 
various accounts, the EPA facilities management, chemical safety 
investigations, work salaries, and expenses.
  I recognize that in every single, and believe, I want to reiterate 
the fact that we looked very carefully for places where we could go to 
offset this. It was very difficult because this is a tight budget, and 
I fully understand that and commend the committee and the staff for 
their work. It is nonetheless our hope that we can encourage our 
colleagues to join in this small way in this very minor adjustment 
change a priority here that we think is extremely important.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, and I know he has given this a great deal of his 
attention, it is a high priority for him and his constituency, and, in 
fact, as I understand it, it is a high priority for the Nation. This is 
a well thought of project, and this account that he has referred to, 
grants for construction State extended-care facilities, is a very 
important account. These are funds that are dear, that everyone across 
the country is covetous of, and what we have provided is $80 million. 
That is twice the President's request. President requested 40 million; 
we put in 80 million. The gentleman is absolutely correct; it is 10 
million below last year, but it is a substantial increase over what the 
President requested.
  As I understand it, it is conceivable, given the allocation, that the 
project that he has supported could conceivably be funded in this 
allocation. There is no guarantees obviously, but what I would say, 
cannot support taking these funds out because we would be reducing the 
EPA Inspector General's office by 17 percent. It is important that we 
keep an eye on that bureaucracy, and that is the Inspector General's 
job.
  But what I would be happy to do as we go through the process and into 
the conferences is try to find a way to help the gentleman meet his 
goal without increasing his funding and thereby cutting funding in the 
other area of the bill. So, I again reluctantly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of worthy causes advanced here by 
Members today, Members wanting to increase funding in different 
accounts, recognizing that in most of those instances the committee 
wanted to raise the money in those accounts, but not being able to do 
so because of our skinny allocation.
  The gentleman from Colorado's amendment is another worthy amendment. 
State veterans homes are extremely important, and as he points out, the 
veterans population is aging, and so they will become increasingly 
important.
  So I want to first acknowledge the worthiness of the gentleman's 
amendment and its purpose.
  Let me first say that the committee recognized the importance of this 
program and increased the funding above the request; I believe doubled 
it. I think the gentleman indicated that, from $40 to $80 million.

                              {time}  1730

  That is not enough. It is not last year's funding. Perhaps as the 
process goes forward, this will be one of those accounts as we get more 
money that we can plus up.

[[Page H8053]]

  But I must say, however worthy the cause is, the offsets are the 
worst I have seen today, proposing to offset, and the gentleman has 
reduced his offsets to two now. Offsetting the Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board by $2 million is a huge cut. It is a 22 
percent cut to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's 
budget.
  I had a letter last March from the chairman of this board, this 
investigation board, which investigates chemical accidents around the 
country, suggesting that under its current spending levels, that it 
probably would not be able to continue investigations through the end 
of the fiscal year. This board, as we need more money for State 
veterans homes, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board 
needs even more money to do its job.
  Cutting it 22 percent would be the absolutely wrong thing to do. This 
is an extremely important mission that the board fulfills. It is having 
difficulty fulfilling it under its current spending rate, and cutting 
it would be just disastrous and prevent it from being able to carry out 
its mission. We do not want to do that, and I am sure the gentleman 
from Colorado does not want to do that.
  The second offset the gentleman proposes is equally difficult. It is 
an offset to EPA's Inspector General account, a $5 million cut, which 
is a 12 percent cut to the Inspector General's account.
  Now, the Inspector General's office is the office that is responsible 
for investigating waste, fraud and abuse, which I am sure the gentleman 
is very much against in agencies. I am sure the gentleman wants 
inspector generals out there investigating the agencies to ensure that 
we do not have waste, fraud and abuse, and to ensure, which is the 
other mission of the Inspector General, that the laws and regulations 
that EPA is supposed to carry forward are carried forward properly. 
This is a 12 percent cut to the Inspector General's office. The 
Inspector General cannot stand a 12 percent cut in their budget.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, while I support the objective of the 
gentleman's amendment, the offsets are really difficult and, in and of 
themselves, make the amendment unacceptable. I would encourage my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I also rise in 
support of this appropriations legislation.
  I want to particularly salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
for his leadership in putting together a good bill. It is always tough 
when you want more money for important programs, and veterans clearly 
are a priority for this Congress.
  I also want to salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his 
efforts to provide what will be historically the largest increase in 
veterans health care funding ever in the history of this country, $1.7 
billion in additional funding for veterans health care. I want to 
salute the chairman for those efforts.
  I also want to note why this amendment is so important. I ask my 
colleagues as you look at this amendment to think about your own 
States. If your States have veterans homes, if they want to expand, if 
they need improvements, if they need to comply with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, this program is pretty important.
  Earlier this year the administration, the Clinton-Gore 
administration, slashed the funding for State nursing home grants. In 
fact, they slashed the program by more than half, from $90 million in 
current funding to $40 million for the coming year. That was wrong. 
That was bad policy. That is why I appreciate the efforts of the 
subcommittee to work to restore those funds. But we need to do more.
  Last year the funding was $80 million. This year it is $90 million. 
This amendment would increase the funding by $7 million, would bring it 
close to the current level of funding.
  We note that the current grant program gives States millions in funds 
to help them expand and build new nursing homes for our veterans. It 
also helps our States meet compliance with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, with renovations to existing homes, as well as 
expansion in homes. My own State of Illinois is owed over $5 million in 
back payments because of the inability to provide the full amount that 
is necessary.
  This is important also to note that there were over 88 applications 
currently pending, totaling $348 million. With this funding, we will 
provide $87 million. There is also $240 million in requests for new 
construction.
  Clearly there is tremendous need out there, particularly as the World 
War II and Korea era veterans reach the age where they require greater 
health care, many needing nursing home care, this is so important.
  I would also like to point out that State veterans homes are pretty 
good bang for the buck. They provide quality service for our veterans, 
but also a savings to taxpayers. VA nursing home care or nursing care 
is about $255 a day for a veteran, but the State homes on average 
provide services for about $40 per day. Clearly it is a bargain, 
quality health care at veterans homes for our veterans.
  I would also note that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the 
authorizing committee, along with the State home directors, recommended 
that we should provide $100 million this year. This helps work towards 
that goal.
  What it means to my home State of Illinois, of course, Illinois is a 
major State with a lot of veterans. Illinois is in need of expansion of 
veterans homes. The LaSalle veterans home has a year and a half waiting 
list. If you think about it, if you have a family member who needs to 
go into a veterans home, 18 months is a long time to wait to be able to 
obtain a bed in that nursing home. So clearly funds are needed.
  I would also point out not only is Illinois owed $5 million in back 
payments, but the Manteno veterans home, which happens to be in my 
district, is still owed back payments for ADA compliance.
  There is a need out there. This amendment is a good amendment. It 
helps restore the funding to the current levels. It is badly needed.
  Again, I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for 
his efforts and particularly for the historic increase of $1.7 billion 
in additional new funding for veterans health care. I salute you, Mr. 
Chairman, for those efforts.
  Let us support our veterans. I ask all the Members of this House to 
take a close look at this amendment. Let us make sure the funds are 
there to ensure our veterans who need nursing home care have it at the 
State level. This is an important grant program.
  I urge an aye vote. Let us support our veterans. Let us reject the 
Clinton administration's horrible cuts. Let us restore these funds and 
help veterans who need nursing home care. Please vote aye. This 
legislation deserves a bipartisan show of support and an aye vote.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first off I would like to commend the chairman for his 
hard work and the staff. Obviously you all crafted a great bill here. I 
must rise today in support of this amendment to increase the funding 
for the veterans state-extended care facilities. These facilities in my 
opinion are imperative to the mission of providing quality health care 
to those who dutifully served our country.
  These veterans homes are the largest provider of long-term nursing 
care to our veterans. They enable the Veterans Administration to ensure 
quality nursing care to veterans that cannot receive proper treatment 
through any other means. Many of the men and women who served our 
country are bedridden due to service-related injuries. It is these 
veterans that the state-extended care facilities will serve.
  Not only are these homes, nursing care units and hospitals necessary 
for proper care, they are also cost effective. If a veteran is forced 
to go to a private nursing home, the VA will reimburse that home on 
average $124 per diem. Contrast that with the approximately $44 per 
diem reimbursement to the State veterans homes for the same care. I 
think you will agree that for this reason alone we should vigorously 
support these facilities.
  Even with the Tancredo-Weller amendment enacted, we will fall far 
short of the funding commitment we have made to the States. The Federal 
Government has agreed to fund 65 percent of the construction costs for 
the

[[Page H8054]]

 state-extended care facilities. At this time, many States have already 
appropriated their share of the construction costs.
  Aside from the current $104 million backlog of work due to previous 
years of underfunding, the Federal Government could be responsible for 
up to $204 million in additional construction money, if all pending 
applications are approved. In other words, even with this amendment, we 
still owe various States across the Nation up to $218 million.
  By the rapidly approaching year 2000, there are expected to be 
approximately 9.3 million veterans over the age of 65. World War II 
veterans continue to require extensive health care that we are proud 
and obligated to provide. This country and the VA must be adequately 
prepared through proper funding to handle the challenge of ensuring the 
best possible care for the men and women who bravely served this 
Nation.
  This is a similar amendment to the one that I offered last year on 
this appropriations bill, and it was difficult, I know, for the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) to find the offset, but I 
commend his efforts for the veterans in his district and across the 
country. I ask that we strongly support his amendment on the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to request that the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), allow 
me a few moments that I may engage him in a friendly colloquy regarding 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
for the record, I have been in contact with your staff regarding 
funding for a wastewater treatment plant in Placer County, which is 
within my district. Due to an oversight, this project was unfortunately 
not included in the VA-HUD bill that is now before us.
  I would ask that the chairman, as we move forward in consideration of 
this bill, work to ensure that $1 million in funding be provided for 
the Placer County wastewater treatment project.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
appreciate the continued interest in this important project in his 
district in Placer County. I assure the gentleman that we will work 
very closely with the gentleman to address this funding matter in our 
conference negotiations.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my distinguished colleague, the ranking 
member from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), to join me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that HUD recently issued a 
notice of funding availability, NOFA, for the Resident Opportunities 
and Self-sufficiency program. This program contains a component for 
service coordinator grants.
  For those of you not familiar with service coordinators, they help 
elderly and disabled residents in public housing get the unique 
services they require. The program is cost effective and the residents 
of public housing love the program, as do the housing authorities.
  Because of its success, Congress has agreed in the last funding cycle 
to provide sufficient funds to renew all existing service coordinator 
programs. Unfortunately, the recent NOFA contains several troubling 
provisions that seem to defy congressional intent and jeopardize the 
ability of many public housing authorities to obtain renewal of their 
service coordinator funding.
  Specifically, one provision provides public housing authorities to 
have to spend 75 percent of their award by August, even though the PHAs 
only received notice of the grant in April. As a practical matter, it 
is impossible for any PHA to expend 75 percent of their funds by the 
first of August, but under the NOFA they must have done so in order to 
qualify for renewal spending for next year.
  Another provision of the NOFA states that the funds will be provided 
on a first-come-first-served-basis. This provision implies that there 
are insufficient funds to pay for renewals. Congress has been assured 
repeatedly by HUD that funds are sufficient to pay for renewal. 
Therefore, the provision is unnecessary.
  After being apprised of congressional concerns, HUD has agreed to 
make changes to the NOFA. In fact, HUD has assured me that an amended 
NOFA will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.
  I appreciate the alacrity with which HUD has acted on this matter and 
want to assure public housing residents that this program will be fully 
funded this year and next.
  I know the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) shares my 
opinion that service coordinators are vitally important and would turn 
to him for a comment on this issue.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the 
chairman for his efforts on the service coordinator issue. I second the 
gentleman's comments.
  Our subcommittee has heard over and over about just how valuable the 
service coordinator committee program can be for elderly and disabled 
residents of public housing.
  The subcommittee intended that funds appropriated in the fiscal 1999 
year for the resident opportunity and self-sufficiency program be used, 
among other purposes, to renew all expiring service coordinator grants. 
I share the chairman's concern about provisions of the recent notice of 
funds availability that could jeopardize those renewals.

                              {time}  1745

  I am pleased that HUD has agreed to revise the notice in order to 
make sure that congressional intent is carried out.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and other members of the 
subcommittee to ensure that adequate funding continues to be provided 
to allow renewal of these service coordinator grants in future years.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and 
his cooperation and help on this matter and so many others as we 
proceeded through this bill.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. STUMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, veterans across the country will appreciate 
the efforts of this subcommittee, under the able leadership of the 
gentleman from New York, for including an historic $1.7 billion 
increase for VA health care, over and above the Administration's flat 
line budget request.
  This is the largest increase for VA health care, and should be 
supported by all Members.
  The increase the bill addresses that needs that were identified in 
the President's budget but not funded including $1.2 billion for 
personnel costs, so that no VA employees will have to be laid off for 
lack of system-wide funding; $200 million for services to veterans with 
hepatitis C; $100 million for the first-year cost of providing 
emergency care for uninsured veterans, and $150 million for long-term 
health care services for aging veterans.
  The chairman read the list of those veterans service organizations 
that are supporting this bill. I will not repeat that. I would like to 
take this time, though, to thank the chairman for the very difficult 
and tremendous job he has done in crafting this legislation, as well as 
the gentleman from West Virginia.
  We should support this unprecedented level of funding in this bill 
for veterans' health care and commit to working together for next year 
to

[[Page H8055]]

make sure that our veterans are given the quality of health care that 
they earn and deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Administration's budget request was criticized on a 
bipartisan basis.
  We should be addressing the shortcomings of that budget on the same 
bipartisan basis.
  The $1.7 billion increase in the bill for VA health care will fulfill 
our Nation's commitment to veterans.
  This level of funding is supported by the:
  Veterans of Foreign Wars.
  Non Commissioned Officers Association.
  Retired Enlisted Association.
  The Military Coalition (a consortium of uniformed services 
organizations representing more than 5 million members) including:
  Millitary Order of the Purple Heart.
  Jewish War Veterans.
  Gold Star Wives.
  Marine Corps League.
  National Guard Association.
  Fleet Reserve Association.
  Reserve Officers Association.
  National Military and Veterans Alliance (with 20 military and 
veterans member organizations) including:
  Retired Officers Association.
  Air Force Sergeants Association.
  Catholic War Veterans.
  National Association for Uniformed Services.
  Korean War Veterans Association.
  Unfortunately, some Members are trying to increase funding beyond 
what is needed this year, and in the process they are dragging some of 
the veterans' organizations into a very partisan political game of one-
upsmanship.
  We should not be playing politics with the benefits that are provided 
by a grateful nation to veterans.
  We should support the unprecedented level of funding in this bill for 
veterans' health care and commit to working together to make sure that 
next year's budget also provides the funding necessary to give veterans 
the quality of health care services they have earned and deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.

    $1.7 Billion VA Medical Spending Hike--Occasion for Celebration

       Nearly a year ago, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and 
     Senators urged the President to hike VA medical care spending 
     for fiscal year 2000 by 10 percent, up an additional $1.7 
     billion.
       The President proposed instead that Congress freeze VA 
     medical spending. The Congressional Budget Resolution 
     subsequently adopted the recommendations of the House and 
     Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees that VA medical care 
     spending should be increased by a record $1.7 billion.
       With Congress now set to vote on a Republican proposal to 
     increase VA medical spending by $1.7 billion to an 
     unprecedented $19 billion, some are calling for a still 
     higher figure.
       How much funding does the VA need?
       What is the foundation for claims that VA administrators 
     ``need'' more than $19 billion to care for veterans?
       How much could VA responsibly spend?
       These are among the questions underlying a budget debate 
     this year. Those calling for higher funding cite the 
     recommendation of an ``independent'' budget developed by four 
     veterans' organizations, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
     Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America.
       Although several veterans organizations fully support and 
     applaud the proposed $1.7 billion increase, the ``Independent 
     Budget'' called for adding $3 billion.
       In past years, the ``Independent Budget'' has called for 
     multi-billion dollar increases in VA medical care spending.
       While Congress has often appropriated more than Presidents 
     have proposed for veterans' medical care, it has never 
     adopted increases of the magnitude proposed by the 
     ``Independent Budget''.
       This year, however, with widespread agreement that the cuts 
     required under the President's budget would have devastating 
     results for veterans, it became clear that a spending 
     increase above $1 billion would be needed.
       Ironically, advocates who have been totally ineffectual in 
     seeking major funding increases in the past are now unwilling 
     to recognize that a 10 percent, $1.7 billion, funding 
     increase is reason to celebrate, not complain.
       In calling late last year for a nearly $3 billion increase 
     in veterans' medical spending, however, the Independent 
     Budget has escaped the close scrutiny given the 
     Administration's budget.
       But, just as the President's budget for VA medical spending 
     is totally inadequate, the ``independent'' budget's is 
     bloated.
       Among its flaws, the Independent Budget: overstates by $430 
     million (based on Congressional Budget Office estimates) the 
     cost in FY 2000 of providing emergency care for veterans; 
     overstates by up to $450 million (based on estimates 
     developed by the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and 
     recently supported by VA experts) the cost of testing and 
     treating veterans for Hepatitis C, a disease affecting VA 
     patients at higher rates than the general population; 
     and ``double-counts'', or spends twice (as a matter of 
     ``principle'' rather than demonstrated need), projected 
     medical care spending of $555 million in collections from 
     veterans' health insurers.
       Adjusting the $3 billion Independent Budget recommendations 
     to eliminate what amounts to cost-padding yields essentially 
     the same funding increase adopted in both the Congressional 
     Budget Resolution and the pending House VA-HUD appropriations 
     bill, an additional $1.7 billion.
       Ironically, as some are calling for still higher spending, 
     editorial writers are questioning the need for any increased 
     VA medical spending, given a GAO report suggesting that VA is 
     wasting an estimated $1 million daily operating unneeded 
     hospital buildings.
       The House Veterans' Affairs Committee just last month 
     approved legislation to encourage VA to mount an ``asset 
     realignment process'', as GAO recommends, to achieve needed 
     mission changes.
       GAO itself acknowledges that instituting such changes will 
     take time.
       Veterans' health care funding should not be shortchanged in 
     the meantime.
       The proposed $1.7 billion increase (to a total medical care 
     budget of $19 billion) is both justified and unprecedented in 
     scope.
       It would: allow VA to open new outpatient clinics and treat 
     record numbers of veterans, an estimated 3.6 million (200,000 
     more than in 1998); remove the threat of layoffs facing at 
     least 8,500 VA health care workers and enable VA to lift 
     hiring freezes on critical job vacancies at many facilities; 
     permit expansion of long-term care services for aging 
     veterans; provide funding for emergency care for veterans who 
     lack any health care coverage; and fund the increased cost of 
     testing and treatment of veterans at risk for Hepatitis C.
       Given the projected impact of this record funding level, 
     how does one account for the rhetoric still voiced in support 
     of higher spending?
       Some veterans' groups have apparently taken the position 
     that if $1.7 billion in additional funding is good, then 
     still more would be better.
       In addition, some Members--ignoring the tradition of 
     bipartisanship which has produced generous benefit programs 
     for America's veterans--have seen the opportunity for 
     partisan advantage in this budget debate.
       Rather than helping ensure a record level of funding for 
     veterans' needs, they are politicizing the issue through 
     ``bid-raising'' and unfairly dragging veterans' organizations 
     into a partisan dilemma.
       House appropriators have worked hard to give veterans a 
     record funding increase that meets in full the 
     recommendations of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.
       It's time, though, that we match our earlier bipartisan 
     criticism of the Administration's budget with bipartisan 
     support for this unprecedented increase in veterans' health 
     care spending.
       Congress should adopt the $1.7 billion increase needed to 
     reinvigorate the VA health care system.
       Members should also commit to working together to make sure 
     that the Administration's next budget provides the funding 
     necessary to give veterans the quality health care they 
     expect and deserve.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude by suggesting that there 
are no further amendments. There is no further business before the body 
on this bill, other than the final amendment and the final passage 
vote.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman for the 
way the Chair has conducted the debate today, and to all the staff who 
have worked so hard and put in all the hours to help us to get to this 
point, and to all the Members who participated in the debate.
  This is the tip of the iceberg, what we see here today. With all the 
work that has gone into this on the part of our constituents and our 
staffs and the Members, I think it is a good product. I am proud of the 
fact that we have gotten this far.
  I thank especially my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member. I have learned a great deal from 
him through this process, not the least of which is about friendship, 
honor, and respect. I treasure that relationship and I thank him for 
his support along the way.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the kind comments of the 
chairman. I want to compliment him on the way he has handled this bill 
from the very beginning of the year. He has done an excellent job, as I 
said at the beginning of my remarks. He is particularly capable and 
very responsive to the legitimate concerns of the minority. That 
certainly has been appreciated.
  I also want to join the chairman in expressing appreciation both to 
the

[[Page H8056]]

majority and minority staffs, and certainly my permanent staff for the 
hard work they have done on this bill, without which it would be 
extremely difficult or actually impossible to move this legislation 
forward. Again, I appreciate the chairman's considerations.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
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 366, 
noes 54, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 401]

                               AYES--366

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                                NOES--54

     Ballenger
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Campbell
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Cox
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Markey
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Stark
     Stump
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bonior
     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Houghton
     Jones (OH)
     Latham
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1811

  Messrs. COX, DELAHUNT and SHERMAN and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Messrs. HILL of Indiana, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, GARY MILLER of 
California, and NADLER and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 401, had I been 
present, I would have vote ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last 3 lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000''.

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2684, 
the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD-Independent agencies appropriations bill.
  American's students and America's Members of Congress just returned 
from summer vacation refreshed and renewed and ready to hit the books. 
Unfortunately in the first week back in class, the House is ready to 
earn its first grade of F.
  If we look at the details of the VA-HUD report card, we can see how 
bad this bill is.
  This bill gets an F for housing programs. It cuts community 
development block grants (CDBG) by $250 million. These funds are 
critical in addressing local housing priorities. I'm usually skeptical 
of block grants, but here is one that has worked wonders to empower 
local communities to address critical housing needs. We need more CDBG 
funds, not less.
  The bill also fails to provide sufficient funds for section 8 
vouchers. Although funding increases slightly, there is a desperate 
need for new vouchers to provide more Americans with the help they need 
to house their families.
  Not only will new families fail to get additional help in paying for 
housing, homeless families will see $970 million less in homeless 
assistance grants.
  The bill gets an F for science funding. It cuts National Aeronautic 
and Space Administration (NASA) funding by over $1 billion. Since the 
space shuttle and International Space Station take up the majority of 
funding, these cuts fall disproportionally on science, aeronautics and 
technology. The bill also cuts $24 million in National Science 
Foundation (NSF) funding, and fails to include the administration's 
proposed increase of $245 million. These cuts to basic science research 
are shortsighted and ill-advised. Our nation's investment in basic 
research and technology has driven our economic development. This will 
be even more true in the future, unless we continue to cut these funds, 
as this bill does. The NSF and NASA have been incredibly valuable and 
successful and need more support, not less.
  This bill gets an F for environmental protection. It cuts the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by $278 million from fiscal year 
1999. It cuts environmental research by $15 million. It cuts clean 
water and air funding, so critical for protecting our nation's 
resources for future generations, by $208 million. We know that once a 
natural resource is destroyed, it is expensive, or impossible, to 
recover. We must invest today, for a clean environment tomorrow. It is 
just that simple.
  The bill gets an F for community service. It eliminates funding for 
the AmeriCorps program which encourages young people to become involved 
in their communities. AmeriCorps has

[[Page H8057]]

been incredibly successful in providing financial assistance to allow 
young people to engage in community service all over our nation. More 
than 100,000 AmeriCorps volunteers have helped to address crime, 
poverty, and illiteracy. AmeriCorps members have taught, tutored or 
mentored 2.6 million children, rehabilitated 25,000 homes, immunized 
419,000 people, and helped 2.4 million homeless people. This is a 
program that works.
  The bill gets a C- for veterans benefits. This is the only passing 
grade since keeping our commitment to our veterans was prioritized in 
this bill. The $1.5 billion increase over last year's appropriations is 
a good step forward in fulfilling our promises to our veterans. But it 
is not enough. Our veterans are worried and frustrated, and they have 
every right to be. The VA health care system desperately needs more 
funding to provide adequate medical care to our nation's veterans, who 
have earned it. For too long this Congress has failed to adequately 
fund veteran's program and benefits, and now the situation is a crisis. 
Congress must do better for our veterans.
  Final grade: F. This bill is a failure. If University of Wisconsin 
students earned this type of report card, they'd have to retake the 
test. And that's exactly what the Congress is going to have to do, if 
this bill passes.
  We can do better, and we must do better. This bill falls far short of 
the needs of our great nation. To shortchange our citizens while we 
increase defense spending is not the way a great nation ought to 
behave. I look forward to a day later this year when I can vote for a 
VA-HUD appropriations bill that can earn a passing grade, or maybe even 
an A. Today, I must give it the grade it deserves and vote ``no.''
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
the fiscal year 2000 VA/HUD appropriations act. While I congratulate 
the committee and subcommittee chairmen on their efforts to add some 
funding for veterans medical care, and in particular, language to 
continue a demonstration project in east central Florida which allows 
the VA to contract with local hospitals to provide inpatient care to 
veterans, I simply cannot support a bill that does not provide adequate 
increased funding for our nation's veterans, decimates the NASA 
program, and terminates the Selective Service Agency.
  I was pleased to see the Hinchey amendment, which would have 
prohibited the VA from using funds to implement or administer the 
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system, was defeated. 
VERA is intended to provide for and equitable distribution of funds for 
medical care. As a representative from a state that has seen a 
tremendous increase in the number of veterans seeking care, I can 
attest to the need for a system that has the dollars follow the 
veterans. Although the bill would increase funding for veterans, there 
will be a continued significant shortfall in funding for VA health care 
and many services are still in danger. According to the Independent 
Budget presented by AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 
United States, this increase is $1.3 billion less than what is needed 
to adequately address the health-care needs of our nation's veterans. 
We cannot penalize our veterans for the sacrifices they have made by 
denying them adequate health care. I am committed to working for 
increased veterans funding, and ensuring that they have the health care 
they deserve.
  NASA has worked very hard to increase efficiency and downsize their 
programs, while receiving reductions in their budget. Over the past 6 
years, they have saved approximately $35 billion relative to earlier 
outyear estimates, while at the same time increasing productivity. 
However, the Committee's actions this year cuts $1 billion from fiscal 
year 1999 levels. This will result in a loss of critical capabilities 
that are essential to the United States' leadership in space. To quote 
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, ``the reductions would severely damage 
the technology base built over the last five years; NASA's ability to 
further reduce costs and increase scientific productivity would end. It 
could also result in the closure of NASA Centers, and the elimination, 
through forced separations, of unique and critical technical skills 
uniquely possessed by NASA.''
  Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about a program that can continue to 
safely operate after sustaining this type of cut. I've heard from my 
constituents of the long hours and extra efforts that NASA employees 
have contributed to keep our space program operating safely. We cannot 
expect this dedication if we do not give them the funds that they need. 
For example, the reduction to Mission Support will wipe out NASA plans 
to correct critical facility safety deficiencies. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  The space program has a tremendous impact on the State of Florida. In 
the my district alone, NASA has granted awards estimated at over $6 
million over the past year. These contracts have gone to local 
businesses, the University of Central Florida and Valencia Community 
College. These partnerships have not only provided students with 
valuable experience, they have provided growth opportunities for small 
businesses. If we enact this bill, the cuts to NASA will reverberate 
throughout the community.
  Additionally, the termination of the Selective Service Agency is 
shortsighted and could risk our national security. I voted for the 
Cunningham amendment to restore funding for this program, which 
unfortunately failed. This year, every military service except for the 
Marine Corps, is faced with recruiting and retention problems. And it 
does not appear as though this problem will end. Should we be faced 
with a crisis that would require a return to the draft, it would take 
more than a year to reconstitute the Selective Service System. This is 
entirely too much time in the event of a crisis. I cannot support the 
termination of this important system.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the efforts by the committee to 
provide an increase for VA medical care and would like to support this 
bill. But given the tremendous reductions and inadequate funding 
levels, I simply cannot vote for this bill. I will work hard to see 
these deficiencies are corrected in conference.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives is scheduled to 
vote on the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD spending bill. Included in this 
bill is funding for veterans, housing, NASA, and the EPA. While there 
is an increase in funding for veterans healthcare, I am disappointed 
that the funding amount is short of the $3 billion requested in the 
Independent Budget, which was developed by AMVETS, Disabled American 
Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars 
of the United States.
  As a member on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I have sat 
through testimony about the President's budget, I have sat through 
testimony about the state of the VA healthcare system, and I have heard 
about VA's plans to lay off employees. Needles to say, this has not 
been an encouraging year with regard to veterans healthcare. In my 
district alone, there are over 55,000 veterans. If funding is not 
available, my veterans will suffer the consequences. And now, at the 
end of the fiscal year, I am faced with a choice of voting for a $1.7 
billion increase in funding or voting against funding in the hopes that 
$3 billion will be added. The smaller figure is insufficient, but a 
step in the right direction. I intend to vote for this bill, but I am 
disappointed that we are not able to amend this bill so that I could 
vote for adequate funding for veterans.

  Our veterans have served our country well. They don't deserve to go 
through the annual budget process with the uncertainty that exists. The 
veterans groups that comprise the Independent Budget are not far off 
the mark when they state in the introduction of the Independent Budget 
for fiscal year 2000:

       Veterans' programs, once secure expressions of a Nation's 
     gratitude, are now only line items on the debit side of the 
     government's ledger--items routinely targeted for cutting in 
     the name of fiscal restraint.

  We have to stop cheating our veterans.
  I will encourage the President to submit a better budget next year. 
And as I did this year, I will work with my colleagues on the committee 
to increase funding for veterans healthcare to the amount requested in 
the Independent Budget.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, providing for veterans and their families is 
one of my highest priorities in Congress. The men and women who served 
in the armed services deserve the gratitude of the entire Nation. But 
rather than fulfilling our obligations to veterans and ensuring the 
continuation of benefits and the improvement of veterans' health care, 
we are letting veterans down. H.R. 2684 fails our veterans. This bill 
provides $1.5 billion more than fiscal year 1999 funding, and $1.6 
billion more than requested by the president--but this is not enough.
  The Independent Budget, published by Paralyzed Veterans of Americans, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans and AMVETS, 
demands a budget increase of $3 billion for fiscal year 2000. This is 
the necessary amount to provide the health care and other services that 
veterans deserve.
  I have met with many Kansas veterans and heard accounts of 
substandard health care and loss of benefits. Not only are we 
eliminating treatment, we are rationing the health care we do provide. 
Veterans have shared their frustration with the state of veterans' 
health care, describing accounts of VA hospitals delaying and denying 
services.
  These men and women sacrificed for our country. They were willing to 
give their lives to protect the principles of our Nation. But instead 
of honoring and providing for our veterans, we are denying them the 
services they

[[Page H8058]]

desperately need. I cannot support this appropriations legislation as 
it does not fulfill our obligation to our veterans. We cannot let 
veterans down in their time of need. We must address the alarming state 
of the VA health care system. We must improve the quality of veterans' 
health care. We must guarantee the continuation of services. We must 
not fail our veterans.
  In addition, this bill critically underfunds vital HUD programs, 
including the HOME program and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
program, which has helped state and local governments revitalize 
neighborhoods, expand affordable housing and economic opportunities, 
and improve community facilities and services for twenty-five years.
  I am proud to represent Kansas City, Kansas, a community that is a 
leader in developing useful and visionary ideas in the use of CDBG 
grants to rehabilitate existing housing stock and build new housing. I 
recently spoke to the mayor of Kansas City, Carol Marinovich, who told 
me that CDBG and HOME grants are the backbone of improvement efforts in 
Kansas City, from Peregrine Falcon Development that is building 68 
single family homes in former vacant lots to Argentine Recreation 
Center that was built with a $1 million CDBG grant, providing a center 
of community to this mixed-income, minority neighborhood. These vital 
programs, like Section 8 housing assistance, public housing capital 
assistance, drug elimination grants, homeless programs, fair housing 
activities, Brownfields cleanup, and housing for persons with AIDS 
represent a commitment to our communities that this bill does not 
recognize.
  This appropriation cuts the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $274 
million, which would undermine the Nation's investment in discovery and 
education, specifically in the institutions of higher learning in 
eastern Kansas, which has fueled unprecedented economic growth for the 
past decade. The funding cut from the NASA science programs jeopardizes 
U.S. leadership in space and has the potential to decrease research in 
our colleges as well as close NASA Centers.
  My final concern with this bill is its failure to meet Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) funding levels of 1999, which could lead to 
excess emissions of as much as 12,000 tons of ozone depleting 
substances. This would result in a depleted ozone layer and increased 
cases of skin cancers and cataracts.
  For these reasons, I am voting against final passage of H.R. 2684.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
2684, the fiscal year 2000 VA/HUD and independent agencies 
appropriations bill. In July of this year, the House Appropriations 
Committee completed a ``mark-up'' of the VA/HUD bill rendering deep 
cuts in funding for veterans, housing and NASA. The overall cuts in 
these programs will hurt our nation's ability to provide safe, 
affordable housing, economic opportunities, and health care for 
veterans. These cuts will also devastate NASA and the Nation's 
preeminence in space science and exploration. Because of these 
unacceptable cuts, I voted against this bill in the Appropriations 
Committee and I will continue to vote against this bill.
  If this bill passes, the $1.6 billion in HUD cuts alone will have a 
devastating impact on families and communities nationwide. Overall, the 
HUD cuts represent: an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for low-
income families in America at a time when worst case housing needs are 
at an all-time high; 16,000 homeless families and persons with AIDS who 
will not receive vital housing and related services; and 97,000 jobs 
that will not be generated in communities that need them.
  The potential impact of the HUD budget cuts on the 15th Congressional 
District of Michigan, which I represent, are dismal and economic 
development activity under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
program will be cut by $250 million from the level enacted in 1999, and 
$5 million will be cut from the job-generating Brownfields Economic 
Development Initiative. This means that approximately 97,000 jobs that 
could be created by these programs will not be. These cuts will impact 
the creation of approximately 191 jobs in my district. Mr. Speaker 
there are several communities that still struggle in the slow lane of 
the Nation's strong economy. The 15th Congressional District of 
Michigan cannot afford to lose one potential job, nor can it afford to 
lose the $1,385,000 total it will lose if this bill passes.
  Despite a booming economy, the number of families with worst case 
housing needs (defined as paying over 50 percent of their income on 
rent) remains at an all-time high of 12.5 million people, including 4.5 
million children, 1.5 million elderly, and 3.5 million persons in 
families on welfare. The cuts in this bill will result in a total of 
over 128,000 families being denied housing vouchers. 88 of the families 
being denied housing vouchers as a result of this bill are from my 
district. We should be expanding rather than cutting the supply of 
affordable housing for all Americans. If we do not take care of our 
nation's most vulnerable citizens during economic plenty, when will we 
open doors for all Americans?
  Although the bill increases funding for veterans health care by $1.7 
billion, the funding is short of the approximately $3 billion, 
advocated by most of the major veterans organizations, that is needed 
to keep pace with the health care needs of veterans. Representative 
Lane Evans, ranking Democratic member of the House Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, has indicated that he is also in opposition to this bill 
because of this funding shortfall.
  The bill slashes funding for key NASA science programs. It cuts the 
request for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $274 million which 
will eliminate funding for almost 14,000 researchers and science and 
mathematics educators. The reduction alone will undermine the Nation's 
investment in discovery and education which has fueled unprecedented 
economic growth for the past decade.
  The bill cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Operating 
Program and will result in personnel reductions that will hamper 
efforts to protect public health and the environment, and prevent the 
EPA from undertaking initiatives designed to improve the quality of the 
Nation's air, water, and food supply. The bill also cuts $50 million 
each from the request for the Superfund program and for the Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund Program.
   Mr. Chairman, I believe these budget cuts will move America in 
exactly the wrong direction. In this era of unprecedented economic 
prosperity we should be expanding, not cutting programs that meet our 
vital needs of housing, economic opportunity, health care for veterans, 
and our preeminence in space science and exploration.
  For these reasons, I vote ``no'' on the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill.
  First, I would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of 
Subcommittee Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Mollohan. They have done 
the best job they could with an inadequate funding allocation.
  Yet, as a result of these funding limits, the bill is bad for 
housing. It reflects a combination of opportunities missed and promises 
unkept.
  There are 5.3 million families--over 12 million Americans--with worst 
case housing needs. This includes some 1.5 million elderly and 4.5 
million children. Last year, as part of this same VA-HUD bill, Congress 
authorized 100,000 new affordable housing vouchers for fiscal year 
2000, to address this need. Yet, today's bill does not fund a single 
new voucher.
  On any given night, there are almost three quarters of a million 
homeless Americans. Yet, this bill actually cuts funding for homeless 
prevention programs--leaving us some $150 million below the funding 
level of five years ago.
  Last year, we enacted historic legislation to reform public housing. 
Yet, today's bill undercuts that reform effort, by cutting public 
housing capital repair funds by $500 million, and leaving housing 
agencies hundreds of millions of dollars short of even covering 
operating costs.
  Overall, virtually every housing program has been cut in this bill--
including housing counseling, fair housing enforcement, the HOME 
program, rural housing, lead paint reduction, and others.
  Finally, this bill is inadequate when it comes to economic 
development. At a time of general economic prosperity, we should be 
acting to ensure that all communities and all Americans have the 
opportunity to participate in that prosperity.
  Yet, instead of approving the Administration's APIC initiative to 
leverage billions of dollars in investments in distressed communities, 
this bill cuts CDBG by $250 million, and also cuts funding for 
brownfields redevelopment, empowerment zones, and enterprise 
communities.
  We should reject this bill unless funding is restored for these 
critical programs.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman: I rise to thank my colleague from New York, 
Mr. Walsh, for including language in his committee report on this 
legislation recommending that EPA investigate and promote opportunities 
for the reuse of industrial packages. I hope that during the conference 
on the VA, HUD bill, Chairman Walsh will see fit to earmark some modest 
amount of money for this program, for which there is ample authority 
under existing law. I am placing in the Record my letter to the 
chairman of the subcommittee in further support of this request.

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 1999.
     Hon. James T. Walsh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: Thank you for including report language in the 
     committee report accompanying H.R. 2684, the FY 2000 
     appropriations bill for VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, 
     that directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
     investigate and promote

[[Page H8059]]

     opportunities for the reuse of industrial packages in order 
     to increase waste reduction and energy efficiency.
       Although I appreciate the fiscal constraints that your 
     subcommittee is under, I hope that in conference on this bill 
     you could add report language providing for a lien item set-
     aside directing EPA to provide ``$1,000,000 to increase waste 
     reduction and energy efficiency through the expanded reuse of 
     industrial packages.'' As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, 
     I recognize the environmental benefits to be derived from 
     reusing industrial packages.
       Thank you for your support on this issue and your 
     consideration of this specific request. Please contact me 
     with any questions or have your staff call Jim Barnette at 
     225-2927.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Bliley,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2684, 
the VA-HUD, and independent agencies fiscal year 2000 appropriations 
bill. I do so because the bill would drastically cut our efforts to 
provide the best care to our nation's veterans and the best protection 
for our environment. But I would like to focus today on the devastation 
this bill would cause in public housing and urban development programs 
in our country, and in my congressional district.
  We are in the midst of an unprecedented economic boom in our country 
which is largely the result of the fiscal discipline exerted in 
Congress when the 1990 and 1993 budget deals were passed. That 
discipline has produced an era where we now have surplus projections 
for the next decade and beyond. In this time of unparalleled growth and 
opportunity, we have a special duty to protect those vulnerable 
citizens who depend on the federal government for housing assistance.
  Worst case housing needs are at an all time high of 5.3 million 
households today. In my district, a number of owners are considering 
opting out of the Section 8 program to cash in on the hot real estate 
market in eastern Massachusetts. Hundreds of seniors living in the 
communities that I represent are frightened because they have received 
notices that their landlords are contemplating the termination of their 
contracts with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 
Without the money to make fair and reasonable offers to these owners, 
and to increase the number of elderly assistance housing vouchers, HUD 
is unable--though not unwilling--to protect these seniors in my 
district and throughout the country.
  In the face of these challenges, what does the Republican majority 
propose to do for these seniors: nothing. Instead, the majority has 
proposed a HUD budget that falls $1.6 billion short of last year's 
level. The bill will not fund a single Administration request for new 
housing and economic development assistance, which includes the funding 
of 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers. And the cuts will have a very deep 
and negative impact in my district--this bill will cut nearly $4 
million, 250 fewer jobs, and 440 fewer housing units for low-income 
families.
  At the same time, the cuts will cripple the ability of HUD to assist 
worthy community development projects in cities and towns in every 
district. In my district, HUD is an active participant in the 
redevelopment efforts of the cities of Everett, Malden, and Medford--
three older, industrial cities that have joined forces to transform 
themselves from industrial-age communities to information-age 
communities with the creation of a telecommunications research and 
development technology park called TelCom City. HUD recently announced 
a grant and loan guarantee package for the TeleCom City project to 
assist these 3 cities to reclaim some of the land at the site that is 
considered ``brownfields.'' This type of assistance is playing a 
critical role in the revitalization of these communities.
  Mr. Chairman, these cuts are too deep. The Republican leadership 
should be ashamed to be proposing to dole out huge tax breaks to the 
wealthy financed on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens in our 
country--those who depend on housing assistance to keep a roof over 
their heads, and those living in cities and towns that need a helping 
hand to achieve their redevelopment goals. I urge a no vote on this 
bill.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to pose the same question to my 
colleagues in the House that I asked a group of veterans in Hoke 
County, North Carolina.
  Name this Country: 1,500,000 active service personnel, 10 standing 
Army divisions, 20 Air Force and Navy air wings, 2000 combat aircraft, 
232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic missile submarines, 232 missiles, 
500 ICBMs with 1950 warheads, 4 aircraft carriers, and 121 associated 
combat ships and submarines.
  The audience of VFW veterans, many of them retired military service 
men and women, had difficulty guessing what country I was talking 
about. I heard a number of responses--North Korea, Russia, Iraq, and 
finally someone guessed correctly--the United States.
  That is where this nation stands in terms of military strength. That 
is where we are since 1992 when a liberal president took over our 
military. The systematic degradation of our armed forces is a disgrace 
to the men and women who have fought for our country, to our fallen 
comrades, and to our veterans who stand witness to the dismantling of 
the military and the VA services they were promised when they entered 
the military.
  I have received letters, phone calls and personal visits, recounting 
horror stories of the services that veterans get from VA hospitals and 
medical clinics. Veterans' Administration officials report that an 
average wait for patients who need to see a specialist is almost 4 
months--120 days! They hope to see this waiting period reduced to what 
they claim an acceptable level--30 days.
  I don't know about you, but when I am in pain--I want to do something 
about it now--not in 30 days and certainly not in 120 days.
  Our system is in need of drastic improvements. That is a fact. But 
cutting funding to the VA and its health care services while the 
veterans population grows is hurting the men and women who have served 
our country. You cannot continue to add users of VA services without 
increasing providers of the health care service. It's simple 
mathematics.
  I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for producing 
legislation under the tightest of budgetary constraints that 
demonstrates this Congress' commitment to our nation's veterans. 
Specifically, I applaud the efforts of committee members to ensure that 
this bill provides $1.6 billion in additional funding over the 
insufficient amount requested in the President's budget.
  I urge my colleagues to support our veterans by supporting this bill. 
I am committed to working with other members of Congress to continue to 
improve upon the services the Veterans' Administration provide in North 
Carolina and around the country.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strongest 
opposition to H.R. 2684, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations bill. As we approach the final stretch of the 
appropriations process, I would like to be able to support this 
legislation, which is one of our largest domestic funding bills. 
Regretfully, I cannot.
  In spite of the hard work of my colleagues, Chairman James Walsh and 
Ranking Member Alan Mollohan, who did their best under difficult 
budgetary constraints, this bill makes unacceptable cuts to essential 
housing, science, space, environmental, and veteran programs.
  For example, this bill funds the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development at $26.1 billion--nearly $2 billion below the 
administration's request. This translates into cuts in all of HUD's 
major programs including the Community Development Block Grant program, 
HOME program, public housing capital assistance, drug elimination 
grants, homeless programs, fair housing activities, Brownfields cleanup 
and development, lead-based paint abatement and housing for persons 
with AIDS.
  The residents of L.A. County, where housing demand is more than three 
times higher than the rest of the nation and rents are at record 
levels, will be devastated. I have received dozens of letters from 
service and housing providers in Los Angeles decrying these proposed 
cuts. They state over and over again that these cuts will severely 
undermine their ability to serve our homeless veterans and working 
families.
  For example, Los Angeles County's average apartment rent is a 
startling $982 a month, 19% higher than the national average. This 
June, Southern California's median home price hit an all-time high of 
$204,000. These trends are troubling for a number of reasons:
  Rising rents means our working families will be forced to double or 
triple-up, leading to severe overcrowding. In fact, the LA Housing 
Department estimates that 25% of poor renters already live in 
overcrowded conditions, many of them having 7 or more people sharing a 
two-bedroom apartment.
  Rising rents also means that many families will be forced to seek 
cheaper housing inland, leading to longer commutes, more freeway 
congestion, and more smog.
  Rising rents is also bad for business, as it makes it more difficult 
for growing companies to attract workers, making them less competitive 
and forcing them to leave the area.
  Furthermore, this bill makes unacceptable cuts to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA. The bill 
butchers NASA's budget by a whopping $1 billion--a 7% cut from last 
year's level. Programs facing the Republican scalpel include basic 
research in astronomy, earth science and space science. NASA 
Administrator Dan Goldin has stated that these cuts will decimate key 
elements of the nation's space program, requiring the largest 
restructuring since the end of the Apollo program.
  This bill's cuts to NASA will effectively decimate the nation's 
future space science program, making substantial reductions in the 
Explorer programs, the Discovery program and

[[Page H8060]]

Supporting Research and Technology, all mainstays of university 
research. Upcoming missions managed by scientists at the University of 
California campuses will also be impacted, including the Mars Polar 
Lander mission at UCLA, Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Observatory at UC 
Berkeley, and the Triana Satellite at UC San Diego.
  The bill also reduces the National Science Foundation's budget by $24 
million from last year's level and $275 million less than requested by 
the Administration. NSF supports basic research that's fundamentally 
important to all aspects of our lives, from basic biological research 
to information technology. At a time when we are grappling with the 
need to improve our schoolchildren's math and science skills, this cut 
will deprive thousands of teachers the training they need in these very 
fields.
  Basic research is also vital to maintaining this nation's preeminence 
in science and space exploration into the next century. Our California 
universities in particular are extremely concerned about the impact of 
these reductions on university-based research. California receives over 
10% of all National Science Foundation's research grants and these cuts 
will limit the number of grants to promising new researchers to 
dangerously low levels.
  To add insult to injury, Republicans at the last minute restored $400 
million to NASA's budget, but at the expense of the AmeriCorps national 
service program. This cut to AmeriCorps' budget essentially terminates 
the highly successful domestic Peace Corps. AmeriCorps members--
tackling critical problems like illiteracy, crime and poverty--have 
served nearly 33 million people in more than 4,000 communities. 
Promoting the American ideals of community involvement, national 
service and civic participation, AmeriCorps members have taught, 
tutored or mentored more than 2.6 million children, served 564,000 at-
risk youth in after-school programs, operated 40,500 safety patrols, 
rehabilitated 25,000 homes, aided more than 2.4 million homeless 
individuals and immunized 419,000 people. Cutting this highly 
successful program is unacceptable.
  Lastly, this bill underfunds medical care for our deserving veterans. 
Veterans are telling us that this bill is still $1.3 billion below what 
the Veterans' Administration needs just to maintain current services. 
While the Appropriations Committee added $700 million to the VA 
account, they rejected an attempt to restore even more funding. My 
colleague from Texas, Representative Chet Edwards, offered an amendment 
to increase veterans health care spending by an additional $730 
million. Mindful of the need to be fiscally responsible, Mr. Edwards 
proposed to pay for this increase by delaying the proposed cut in the 
capital gains tax, which is one the prized goodies included in 
Republican leadership's tax bill. This amendment failed on a party line 
vote, reaffirming that Republicans prefer to hand out benefits to the 
rich than provide health care benefits for veterans.
  I have no choice but to oppose this draconian bill and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my appreciation 
of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) leadership in fighting the 
rising hepatitis C (HCV) epidemic among veterans. It is my view that 
the VA, Congress, community health leaders, and veterans' service 
organizations must do even more to ensure that veterans have access to 
the testing and treatment they deserve.
  Today, nearly four million Americans have HCV. But the infection rate 
among veterans is as much as six times higher than in the general 
population according to the American Liver Foundation. Recent testing 
efforts within the VA indicate that nationally 8-10 percent of veterans 
are HCV positive and in some urban areas it is double that rate.
  Alarming as these numbers are, the situation in the Hispanic 
community is especially serious. In our community, the infection rate 
approaches six percent among those in their late forties and early 
fifties and I am concerned that among Hispanic veterans the rate could 
be even higher. I am particularly concerned that we are seeing the 
beginning of what will be a steadily increasing number of Vietnam era 
veterans who test positive for this disease. Nearly one million 
Hispanic Americans are veterans of military service, several hundred 
thousand of whom served during the Vietnam era.
  Unfortunately, HCV is a silent killer. The disease progresses slowly 
without symptoms in a majority of patients for two decades or more. 
Patients with chronic NCV have significantly lower health-related 
quality of life than healthy individuals. But let there be no mistake 
about the serious nature of this disease. Untreated, HCV leads to liver 
failure, cancer, and death. It is now the leading cause of liver 
transplantation--a procedure that costs upwards of $250,000 if an organ 
is even available for the patient.
  I would like to have seen more funds directed toward veterans' 
healthcare and I strongly urge the VA to take all necessary steps to 
ensure that at the local level, every veteran who needs testing and 
treatment for HCV is able to get it. I applaud the efforts of veterans 
service organizations and local community health leaders to inform the 
at-risk members of our communities about the dangers of HCV. I look 
forward to working with each of these groups in the effort to halt the 
spread of this epidemic.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to register my deep 
concern about funding levels in this bill.
  Our colleagues have already spoken about how deficiencies in funding 
for Housing and Urban Development programs would have a devastating 
impact on families and communities nationwide. Overall, the cuts 
represent an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for low-income 
families in America at a time when worst-case housing needs are at an 
all-time high. Colorado's HUD funds would be cut by $16.56 million, and 
my district in Colorado would see cuts in HUD programs of $2.58 million 
from this year's levels. There are still so many Americans who aren't 
benefiting from our country's unprecedented national prosperity. As 
Secretary Cuomo has said, ``Now is the time to invest in a brighter 
future for people and places left behind.''
  Some of my colleagues are seeking to boost the budgets of housing and 
veterans programs by taking funds from NASA, NSF, and other worthwhile 
science programs. I don't think this is the answer.
  In fact, there is no point in trying to shift funds around when the 
real problem is a severely underfunded bill. The right way to fix this 
bill is to start over. There is simply no fat to cut from this bill, 
especially where NASA is concerned.
  The cuts made to NASA's budget in the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD 
Appropriations bill represent the largest cut to the agency since the 
end of the Apollo program. Not everything was cut--academic programs, 
for instance, were increased 6 percent over fiscal year 1999 levels. In 
particular, the budget for the Space Grant program, which works through 
the Colorado Space Grant Consortium in my district, was increased to 
FY99 levels, enabling 15 colleges and universities and thousands of K-
12 students throughout Colorado to continue to work together on the 
Citizen Explorer Satellite.
  Overall, however, the bill cuts NASA's funding by $1 billion from 
this year's levels. Space science programs--which fund the planetary 
missions, space-based observatories and other spacecraft, as well as 
research grants to universities and other institutions--have been cut 
$163 million from this year's levels. These cuts endanger current and 
future NASA projects like Chandra, which recently sent images of 
exploding stars and black holes back to earth. Chandra's science 
instruments and the camera that took these photos are housed in a 
science instrument module built by Ball Aerospace, based in Boulder, 
CO.
  This bill would also cut NASA funding to space and earth science 
programs at the University of Colorado. Important NASA-funded programs 
at CU's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, the Center for 
Astrodynamics Research, and the Center for the Study of Earth from 
Space, among others, would all see deep cuts under this bill.
  This bill also cuts funding for the National Science Foundation by 
$24 million below fiscal year 1999 levels. As the only agency with the 
responsibility of supporting research and education in all science and 
engineering disciplines, NSF funds many important programs. NSF funding 
represents 67 percent of the overall budget of the world-renowned 
National Center for Atmospheric Research, based in Boulder. At flat 
funding for fiscal year 2000, NCAR will receive, in real dollars, an 
approximate 4-percent cut.
  Over the last few weeks, I have received hundreds of letters and 
calls from Coloradans in my district expressing concern, shock, even 
outrage over the cuts to science programs in the VA-HUD bill.
  Many of these calls and letters are from students, researchers, and 
employees who would see their work directly affected by cuts in NASA's 
budget. But many of the letters I have received are from citizens who 
have no direct interest in NASA's programs. To me, their voices are 
significant because they point to the fact that science and space are 
concerns to us all. They understand the importance of continuing our 
investment in science, technology, research, and learning.
  NASA tells us that ``it is entirely foreseeable that this budget will 
cut off opportunities for the engineers, technologists, and earth and 
space scientists of the future, losing a generation of researchers who 
would have taken space exploration and development of cutting-edge 
technologies into the next millennium.'' I think that about sums it up. 
We're living in a time of prosperity that has been brought on by 
technological advances, yet we're not willing to fund the very programs 
that represent the backbone of this growth and that will continue to 
fuel it.

[[Page H8061]]

  Mr. Chairman, the answer isn't to rearrange funding within this bill 
to suit our various priorities. The answer is to go back to the drawing 
board and come up with a bill that makes sense. As it stands, this bill 
isn't up to the task, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
2684, the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations for fiscal year 
2000.
  The Republican leadership's fiscal year VA-HUD appropriation fails 
miserably to protect our nation's veterans. The Republican leadership 
should be ashamed to offer a bill which slashes funding for the men and 
women who fought for our freedom. This Republican-led Congress has 
flat-lined veterans funding for the last four years. As our veterans 
continue to age, they face more medical emergencies. Unless funding for 
veterans' health care is significantly increased, services will be cut 
and essential health care will be denied. If we pass this bill, the 
message we send to our veterans is that the sacrifices they made for 
our country are meaningless. Give our nation's veterans what they 
deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, in these times of economic prosperity, our nation has a 
responsibility to provide adequate assistance to our most vulnerable 
citizens. This legislation should also be opposed for the devastating 
cuts that it makes to programs that protect the interests of senior, 
persons with disabilities, children and the poor. In my district alone 
over $4,612,000 dollars will be lost as a result of cuts to HUD. This 
will result in the elimination of a least 215 jobs as well as 401 
housing units for low-income families.
  If we are to remain committed to the principles of welfare reform and 
economic development, we must recognize that massive cuts to 
transitional housing and the elimination of jobs works directly against 
these higher goals. If we are to consider ourselves advocates for our 
nation's children, we must know that a $10 million cut to the Lead 
Hazard Control Grant program puts children's health directly at risk. 
If we are to confront the needs of persons with AIDS, we must realize 
that their successful medical treatment requires stable housing. It has 
often been said that you can tell a lot about a country by how they 
treat their most vulnerable citizens. I ask, what does this legislation 
say about the Unite States:?
  In addition, it is a travesty that this bill eliminates funding for 
the AmeriCorps program. This initiative has been a tremendous success 
in my district. Lower-income children have been given opportunities to 
work with mentors that they would not have had without this program. 
These children have been given a chance to learn from an early age how 
important a quality education is, and to learn lifelong learning skills 
that will help them become productive members of our society and afford 
to go to college.
  Lastly, NASA and the National Science Foundation have made great 
strides over the years, and I am disappointed that important science 
initiatives have been drastically cut. I am concerned that a cut this 
large will destroy any chance of us becoming the world leader in space 
and technology endeavors.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the VA-HUD appropriation bill 
for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues Mr. Walsh and Mr. 
Mollohan and those on the Appropriations Subcommittee have been given 
an impossible job given the BBA of 1997.
  Had the entire budget process been more honest, we would not have the 
situation that we are in, today. Had the budget process been more 
honest, Congress probably could have passed this bill before the August 
district work period.
  Instead we are here pitting the NASA scientists against the veterans, 
against the children who participate in AmeriCorp against the segment 
in our society who needs help with affordable housing so they are not 
on the streets homeless. All of these programs are worthy of our 
support and all contribute to help make our communities more livable.
  Some would say that this process helps us set our priorities, others 
would say that this just shows who is more politically organized.
  In reality it is probably a slight demonstration of both, but since 
this is a political arena it favors the politically organized. Is it 
any wonder that the federal government spends 14 times more on space 
exploration than in oceanic research? NASA's proposed budget is $13.85 
billion while the two agencies that do oceanic research NOS and NIPHS' 
budget combined is only $930 million.
  I believe Congress should tone down the political nature of budgeting 
and be in the business of making communities more livable. A livable 
community is one that is safe, economically secure and one that plans 
and helps to meet the needs of those less fortunate.
  An undeniable part of a livable community is affordable housing. The 
federal government is key to helping people who cannot otherwise be 
housed and to assist families in transition from dependent to self-
reliant.
  At a time when the American economy is booming and the government for 
the first time in decades is not operating in the red, it makes no 
sense to cut money from public housing, when for this segment of our 
community, affordable housing becomes harder to find. But under the 
present political budget process, the money has to be cut.
  In my district, the Housing Authority of Portland operates 2,800 
units of public housing in 32 apartments and over 200 single-family 
sites.
  Who are the people that live in our public housing? They are the 
poor, the elderly and younger people with various disabilities. They 
are the people who have families who are working hard to learn skills 
to work at jobs that pay more than minimum wage.
  They are precisely the people we want to help even if they are the 
people who are not politically organized.
  They are not the people who will be helped next year by the over 
three-quarter trillion dollar tax breaks even though many have a very 
heavy tax burden because so much of their income goes to payroll taxes 
and sales taxes.
  They are the people who will be hurt this year by this bill, because 
the bill falls short, because the Congress in 1997 got pulled away from 
the real priorities of the American people.
  The non-capital costs of operating those public housing units in 
Portland last year was paid for with $5.5 million in tenant rents. Yes, 
tenant rents. This did not cover the costs of the units, an additional 
$5.1 million was paid by the federal government to help with the 
operating costs.
  There are U.S. citizens across this country who need this type of 
support. This type of hand up. Without it, there will be 156,000 fewer 
housing units for low-income families.
  It means our homeless population will probably increase by 16,000 
people and people with AIDS won't get the help they need to get off the 
street. It means 97,000 jobs won't be generated for people coming off 
welfare.
  If this bill passes with the present cuts in HUD of $1.6 billion 
below last year's level, people in Portland will be faced with a 15 
percent reduction in operating subsidy this year.
  That means Portland could face a loss of $4,670,000. We could lose 
529 low income housing units for families.
  Livable communities promote safe neighborhoods, economic security, 
and where there is a good partnership with private institutions and 
government at all levels to leave the community and the environment 
better than they found it.
  Let's be honest with the American people. Lets not chop away at it 
each year leaving our elderly, disabled and young struggling families 
to fend for themselves. Let's not pit our veterans against our seniors 
or scientists.
  An honest budget process will make our jobs easier. Housing shouldn't 
be a political issue. I think most folks agree that there will always 
be some people in our society that we will always have to help, and we 
know we should. For many others help now means the American Dream is 
achievable tomorrow. All segments of our community deserve our 
attention and help. This process needs to be changed to promote not 
just an honest discussion but a more fair and equitable budget.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of our 
country's space program. NASA's contributions to the science community 
are immeasurable, yet its funding is being cut nearly $1 billion for FY 
2000.
  I am troubled by this cut in NASA's funding. For decades, the United 
States has been the preeminent leader in space exploration. We were the 
first to put a man on the moon; we have had a successful space shuttle 
program; we possess superb satellite technology; and we are about to 
lead the world in building an international space station. How can the 
United States continue to be the world leader in space without the 
proper funding?
  The United States has made great strides in scientific research and 
development as a direct result from NASA programs. We have learned a 
great deal from our space endeavors, but there is still so much to be 
discovered.
  Our space program has enabled us to view spectacular cosmic events at 
the far reaches of the universe. We have been able to witness the birth 
of stars, observe black holes, and map distant galaxies. The United 
States has also been able to make great strides in medical research 
through experiments conducted in space. Future experiments that NASA 
conducts in space might yield information leading to a cure for cancer 
or heart disease. The possibilities are endless, as long as NASA is 
fully funded.
  NASA has also made important contributions to the United States armed 
forces with state-of-the-art technology allowing the U.S. to maintain 
military superiority over the world.
  It is regrettable to see NASA's funding scaled back so drastically. 
The research that NASA conducts is invaluable to both earth and space 
sciences and its benefits are far reaching. It is imperative that NASA 
receives the

[[Page H8062]]

necessary funding to continue making progress in scientific research 
and development, space exploration, and universal observation.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, veterans hospital facilities around the country are 
faced with mounting budget shortfalls. Hospitals are being consolidated 
around the country, including Tennessee, due to a lack of sufficient 
funds. An insufficient budget means the same inadequate funding for 
health care, more reductions in full-time employees, and new 
initiatives without new funding to pay for them. Veterans are growing 
older and sicker each year. We are approaching a medical emergency. 
Unless the veteran health care system receives the kinds of increases 
in funding it needs, critical services will be cut, health care denied, 
facilities closed and dedicated employees out of work.
  Mr. Chairman, quite simply, this pattern has to end. This situation 
is outrageous. Our veterans have served their country in the noblest of 
manners. It is now our obligation and duty to take care of them. And in 
order to do this, we simply need sufficient funding.
  I spoke on this floor five months ago about the dire situation our 
veterans are facing. Despite my best efforts in both the Budget 
Committee and on this floor, our veterans were left without the 
increases in funding they so desperately need. In the meantime, this 
House has found the time to pass a fiscally irresponsible $792 billion 
tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest members of our 
society. This ridiculous tax cut depletes the resources available to 
our veterans who have already given so much to their country. This is 
quite simply about priorities: does this House want to improve health 
care for our nation's veterans or do we want to provide 
disproportionate tax cuts to the wealthy?
  Although H.R. 2684 increases veterans funding, it only goes part way. 
A broad coalition of veterans groups have called for larger increases, 
particularly for veterans' health care. An amendment offered by Mr. 
Edwards and ruled out of order by the Rules Committee would have 
restored some of this critically needed funding. I strongly believe 
that serving our veterans, who have already made sacrifices to serve 
our country, should be a top priority in this House. It deeply saddens 
me that it appears others in this body put a higher priority on giving 
the wealthiest of our country a break on their capital gains taxes.
  It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join 
me in opposing this bill. Regardless of which side of the aisle you are 
on, it is simply wrong to deny our veterans the funding they so 
desperately need. I hope that we can all agree on the need to provide 
increased funding for our veterans. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill and support efforts to increase veterans funding.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, what are our priorities if we cannot repay 
those to whom we owe so greatly?
  Earlier this summer, against the wishes of the American people, the 
majority party in this House passed a trillion-dollar tax bill. It 
helped the rich, big business, and an array of special interests. It 
promised economic prosperity and a balanced budget. It promised to 
return budget surpluses that exist only on paper.
  I voted against the tax plan for a number of reasons. It was and is 
my belief that before Congress passes massive tax cuts that benefit the 
vast majority of Americans in a very minor way, that we first save 
Social Security, Medicare, and other invaluable programs. We also pay 
down our national debt. Those should be our priorities and primary 
duties.
  There is one additional duty we should have performed before we 
passed a massive tax cut. It is a duty to which we are honor bound. 
That duty, Mr. Chairman, is to provide quality health care to the 26 
million living Americans who, at times of great peril to the Nation, 
risked their lives selflessly for out country. We must provide our 
veterans with the benefits they were promised and deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, we must decide what kind of medical care delivery 
system best suits our nation's veterans. We must either provided the 
necessary funds--all of them--to provide quality health care services 
under our current system, or we must make a radical change to a new 
system that guarantees that our veterans have access to quality health 
care. I am willing to support either option so long as our veterans 
find it acceptable and receive deserved high-quality health care.
  What I cannot support maintaining the unsatisfactory status quo or 
something worse. As a veteran and a Member proud to serve our veterans, 
I will not support perpetuating a mediocre veterans' health care 
system. That, Mr. Chairman, is precisely what this bill does. Once 
again, the President requested a funding level incapable of providing 
quality service. Once again, the Republican Congress has produced a 
budget and an appropriations bill that fails to meet the VA's and our 
veterans' needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I listen again and again to veterans in Michigan's 16th 
District complain about the poor service at VA clinics, excessive 
waiting lines at hospitals, crumbling facilities, insufficient numbers 
of qualified medical personnel, and an inability to provide 
prosthetics, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids, eyeglasses, and 
other needs. The VA' ability to provide long-term care is still not 
solved. Funding requests filed a decade or more ago, like in Allen 
Park, Michigan, go unfulfilled. The VA will again be asked to further 
streamline bureaucracy, improve efficiency, and get a bigger bang for 
the buck. But inadequate funds will be made available.
  Mr. Chairman, you know who loses if we pass this bill today and 
maintain the status quo. It is the veterans and the country they 
served.
  Veterans, veterans' service organizations, and Members of Congress 
from both parties have continually insisted that if the VA is to 
maintain its current level of medical services, an additional $3.2 
billion would be needed in FY 2000. The bill before us provides less 
than half that needed amount. It puts a shin plaster on a cancer. At a 
time when our veterans' long-term care needs are greatest, it slashes 
funding to state extended care facilities, the one type of long-term 
care venture that has been of moderate success. It also fails to 
provide any funding for tobacco-related illnesses.
  I also would like to note my displeasure at the party-line decision 
made by the Rules Committee. The action of the Rules Committee and the 
rule itself are a great disservice to our veterans. They prevent the 
House from having an honest debate on the Edwards-Evans-Stabenow 
amendment, which would have provided an additional $730 million 
veterans' medical care. To offset the cost of this meaningful piece of 
legislation, the Edwards amendment would have delayed the 
implementation of the proposed Republican cut in the capital tax by one 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this bill, and I am ashamed that again 
this year Congress will fail in its task of providing quality medical 
care to our veterans. We all owe our veterans a debt of gratitude. It 
is time to pay our debt.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
2000 VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill. This bill 
before us is a good bill which takes care of our nation's veterans, 
addresses critical housing needs, protects the environment, and invests 
in science and technology research. At the same time, this bill 
demonstrates to the American people that Congress has kept its 
commitment to balance the federal budget. Many tough decisions were 
made to ensure that the government lives within its means and Congress 
keeps its promise to the American people.
  However, Mr. Chairman, despite these tough decisions, we have 
provided our veterans with a $1.7 billion increase. This means veterans 
will receive the medical care they deserve through medical centers and 
facilities like community based outpatient clinics. Countless veterans 
in my district have spoken to me about how much they appreciate having 
a clinic in their community rather than having to drive two or more 
hours for outpatient care. I'm proud to say that Congress, not the 
President, is making sure more community clinics are opened for 
veterans across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill also meets the crucial housing needs of low 
income, senior, and disabled populations. Section 8 and section 202 
programs have been fully funded. Additionally, this bill protects the 
environment by increasing money for state and local environmental 
programs. This money will not stay in Washington but will be 
distributed to important state revolving funds for the protection of 
our natural resources.
  Also, I want to express my support for critical funding of research 
and technology programs. NASA is paving the way for aeronautics and 
space technology into the next century. Congress must continue to 
support this research in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Finally, I would like to commend Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member 
Mollohan for their leadership. They have done a fine job producing a 
responsible and fair bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 2684, the Veterans (VA), Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2000. First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished Chairman 
of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee 
(Mr. Walsh), the distinguished Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Mollohan) 
and all members of the subcommittee for the important but difficult 
work they did under the tight budget caps imposed in 1997.
  Once again, this subcommittee undoubtedly has struggled to complete 
the tough task of allocating limited resources among many deserving 
programs. As a member of the House Banking Committee, the committee 
with jurisdiction over Federal housing programs, this

[[Page H8063]]

Member is very interested in how funds are appropriated in this area. 
Although there are numerous deserving programs included in this funding 
bill, this Member would like to emphasize five points.
  First, this Member, in particular, would like to comment favorably 
upon the treatment of some housing programs. Section 8, section 184, 
section 202, and section 811 programs probably were funded as 
adequately as we can under the budgetary restraints. In particular, 
this Member commends the $6 million appropriation for the section 184 
program, the American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which he 
authored. This seems to be a program with excellent potential which, 
this Member notes without appropriate modesty in recognizing the 
support received from many colleagues, is for the first time providing 
private mortgage fund resources for Indians on reservations through a 
Federal Government guarantee program for those Indian families who have 
in the past been otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due 
to the trust status of Indian reservation land.
  Second, this Member applauds the subcommittee for reducing the 
duplicative efforts of the Federal Government in rural housing and 
economic development. After a funding level of $32 million in fiscal 
year 1999 for rural housing and economic development efforts in HUD, 
the subcommittee appropriated no money in fiscal year 2000 for HUD's 
rural housing efforts. However, unfortunately, a set-aside of $10 
million is still allocated from CDBG for rural housing and economic 
development.
  As a long-term advocate of rural housing during my tenure in the 
House, this Member nevertheless believes that we need to be careful of 
duplication and waste of financial resources in the efforts of the 
Federal Government's programs for rural housing and economic 
development. The United States Department of Agriculture, through their 
Rural Development offices, has housing and development staff located 
throughout each state. We do not need to hire new HUD ``community 
builders'' to duplicate their work as suggested by the administration.

  Third, however, this Member would like to emphasize his concerns 
about the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) provisions in this 
Act. The CDBG Program is proposed to be cut from a funding level of 
$4.750 billion in fiscal year 1999 to $4.5 billion for fiscal year 
2000, a reduction of $250 million. This Member would like to certainly 
support the restoration of funds for CDBG to the fiscal year 1999 level 
in the conference committee. The CDBG program not only is valuable to 
the larger entitlement cities, it gives assistance to those communities 
under 50,000 through state administering agencies. It is a government 
program with minimal overhead and bureaucracy.
  Moreover, the CDBG program has provided invaluable dollars to cities 
and rural communities for such things as affordable housing, public 
infrastructure, and economic development. Specifically in Nebraska, 
CDBG dollars have recently been used in rural counties to meet their 
recent hurry-up demand for the development of important comprehensive 
plans and zoning ordinances as a result of concerns over the placement 
of mega-sized hog production factories.
  With regard to CDBG, this Member is pleased to commend the 
subcommittee on reducing the overall set-asides by $266.5 million as 
compared to last year. This Member has testified at the subcommittee 
level that the expenditure of the maximum amount of CDBG funds should 
be left to the allocation of the state and eligible entitlement 
governments as compared to selected set-aside programs.
  Fourth, this Member would also express his opposition to the 
elimination of the funding for the AmeriCorps Program, as contemplated 
by this appropriations bill. The funding for the AmeriCorps Program 
should be restored in the conference committee.
  Lastly, this Member is aware of HUD's concerns with the reduced level 
of this subcommittee's appropriation. However, it is important to note 
that overall Congress is providing more than $26 billion for housing 
and community development across the country, an increase of $2 billion 
from the fiscal year 1999 mark. Moreover, 18 new HUD program 
initiatives deserve a thorough review by the authorizing committees 
before they are launched. According to the General Accounting Office, 
HUD has requested more than $700 million for these ambiguously defined, 
and in some cases-questionable, new initiatives. This Member definitely 
believes we place an emphasis on funding proven current programs 
instead of understanding a wide variety of new initiatives, many of 
which lend themselves to the use of discretion for political rewards.
  Because of the necessity to fund important housing and community 
development programs and despite the reservations expressed, this 
Member would encourage his colleagues to support H.R. 2684, the VA, 
HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the ranking 
member, and their staffs for all the hard work that they put into 
crafting this bill under what were very difficult circumstances. As a 
new member of the subcommittee, I appreciated the collegial and 
bipartisan manner in which the chairman managed the committee.
  However, I think we all recognize that the initial allocations given 
to our subcommittee were wholly unrealistic. Because of this 
unreasonable allocation, the subcommittee has had to make deep cuts in 
several programs that if signed into law, would prove devastating. In 
particular, the bill we are debating today cuts NASA funding by $1 
billion, thereby endangering our nation's research and technological 
edge. It cuts vital HUD programs by $1.6 billion below last year's 
levels. In addition, the bill does not include any of the 
administration's request for new housing and economic development 
assistance such as APIC (America's Private Investment Companies) that 
could substantially improve the quality of life in many of our 
communities.
  For these and other reasons, Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose 
final passage of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts by the subcommittee to address 
some of these funding shortfalls by raising our initial allocation 
during the full committee markup of the bill. I am especially pleased 
that the full committee increased funding to NASA by $400 million. 
However, much more needs to be done. While the increase of $400 million 
to NASA is an improvement to the previous $1.4 billion cut, the total 
funding for NASA remains intolerably low. In addition, given the fact 
that this increase comes at the expense of the AmeriCorps program, it 
is a certainty that the President will veto the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, it's sad that little more than one month after the 30th 
Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, we are debating such massive 
cuts to NASA.
  Neil Armstrong's first step may have been one giant leap for mankind, 
but the step that we are about to take would be one giant leap 
backwards for America. NASA technology has been an engine for economic 
growth in America--creating jobs, building entirely new industries, and 
improving our standard of living.
  This Nation's previous investment in NASA yielded a research and 
technology capability without peer.
  NASA's research helps solve society's most difficult problems. 
Through the ground-breaking research of our NASA scientists, we have 
improved the health of an aging public, helped our military ensure our 
national security, and protected our environment without damaging our 
industries.
  Mr. Chairman, let's talk about the harmful effects of the bill as it 
relates to NASAO Dan Goldin, the NASA Administrator, says these 
reductions will decimate key elements of the Nation's space program.
  Mr. Goldin said that these cuts would force the closure of one of 
three NASA Centers, resulting in significant layoffs. These cuts will 
be felt by the families of the men and women who will lose their jobs 
as a result of this bill.
  This kind of budget might even reduce the flight safety of future 
shuttle missions, and the loss of morale will cause NASA to lose some 
of its most talented people.
  Mr. Chairman, NASA has come too far and worked too hard for us to 
allow this to happen. Since 1994, NASA has made more budgetary 
sacrifices than almost any other Federal agency. At the same time, NASA 
has increased its productivity and efficiency; delivering on Dan 
Goldin's promise of ``faster, stronger, cheaper.'' These proposed cuts 
are not the way that Congress should reward the success of the American 
patriots at NASA who work everyday in the Nation's interest. America 
looks to us to build on the progress that has been made, not to destroy 
the very foundation upon which it rests. NASA is an American treasure--
unique in the history of the world--and we must fight to sustain it for 
our future.
  In a period of unprecedented prosperity, we should be looking for 
ways to deepen our investments in scientific research, bringing new and 
substantial economic development to many of our nation's struggling 
communities, as well as providing adequate resources for our nation's 
veterans who have so patriotically served our country. Instead, this 
bill moves our nation in exactly the wrong direction by making deep 
cuts in many vital programs.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I regrettably must oppose the bill that is 
before us today and urge my colleagues to do the same. I look forward 
to working with the chairman and the ranking member to improve this 
bill as this process moves forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill? If not, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaTourette, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State

[[Page H8064]]

of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 275, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. In its present form, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am.

                              {time}  1815

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will report the 
motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2684 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     bill back to the House promptly in a form that ensures 
     compliance with the section 302(b) allocation using 
     Congressional Budget Office scorekeeping conventions to avoid 
     sequestration of billions of dollars in discretionary 
     spending in vital federal programs including the national 
     defense, the National Institutes of Health, veterans medical 
     care, and education and environmental programs, among many 
     others.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill pretends to spend $19 billion on 
veterans health care, $3.6 billion on National Science Foundation, 
$17.4 billion on housing, and $7.3 billion on environmental protection. 
But to make this bill eligible for consideration on the House floor it 
contains a phony $3 billion cut in the Tennessee Valley Authority that 
the congressional Budget Office and OMB both agree saves not one dime.
  That means that, in the end, unless $3 billion in real savings are 
found, the law requires every item in this and every other 
appropriation bill to be sequestered; or, in plain language, to be cut 
by $3 billion. That would mean defense would be cut by $1.5 billion, 
veterans would be cut below the amount in the bill, and science would 
be cut further below the amount in the bill.
  This motion simply tells the committee to find a real $3 billion 
offset rather than the phony TVA offset which is now contained in the 
bill. Unless the committee produces a real offset, we will cause real 
reductions in veterans health care, in health and education programs in 
the budget, in environment, in defense, in science and virtually every 
other function of the government.
  Mr. Speaker, so far this year we have seen several bills which use 
CBO scoring, then we see one other bill which simply uses what is 
called directed scoring. In other words they order the scorekeeper to 
tell us how much money the bill will be estimated to spend, which hides 
almost $10 billion. And we see other bills that pretend they meet the 
budget requirements by labeling items as emergency expenditures. This 
one is the most dangerous of them all because it actually will produce 
sequestration, or cuts in other programs, including the programs in 
this bill, of almost $3 billion.
  The way to avoid those unnecessary actions is to support this 
recommittal motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. WALSH. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The Committee on the Budget 
has supported our 302(b) allocation and the provisions in the bill 
which kept us within that allocation. We do not believe, nor is there 
anything that would lead us to think, that there will be any 
sequestration of funds.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. There is no good reason to recommit 
it to the committee. The committee has worked its will. The House is 
prepared to vote. This bill contains the largest-ever increase in 
veterans medical care. It has the support of the American Legion, the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill strikes a delicate balance that keeps us 
within our allocation and it keeps us on track to produce a surplus 
that will benefit our country, helping us to save Social Security and 
Medicare, to reduce our debt, and to provide all American taxpayers 
with a well-deserved tax cut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 215, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 402]

                               AYES--207

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

                               NOES--215

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons

[[Page H8065]]


     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Houghton
     Latham
     Linder
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1838

  Mr. KINGSTON and Mr. COX changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 187, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               YEAS--235

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--187

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Houghton
     Latham
     Miller, George
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Sununu
     Towns
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1855

  Mr. McINNIS and Mr. SHADEGG changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________