[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10042-H10060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2684, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I call up 
the conference report on 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 328, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 13, 1999, at page H9983.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a terrific day to be here, I think, with the 
results that we have. It has been a remarkable process beginning back 
in the spring, the hearings over these many, many different and, by 
definition, sundry departments, lots of priorities with competing 
needs. I think that the process worked its way through in a very 
nonpartisan fashion. Mostly, the competition is between the Departments 
within the bill.
  We had wonderful cooperation from the minority. Specifically the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking Democrat on 
the subcommittee, was very, very constructive and very, very helpful 
all the way along, not only in helping us establish priorities, but in 
getting votes to pass the bill as we first came through the House. I 
owe him a deep debt of gratitude. He had a very difficult personal 
period at the same time, and he just kept moving forward with us. 
Without him, we could not have been successful. So I thank the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  I also thank his staff and my staff who worked so well together, and 
also the members of the Senate, Senator Bond who chaired the 
conference, and Senator Mikulski, the ranking Democrat from the Senate.
  We felt that, by working out the issues amongst ourselves before we 
sat down and discussed these issues with the White House, we would be 
in better shape to bring the priorities together. That is what we did.

                              {time}  1100

  We had pretty much a consensus legislative position, and then we sat 
down with the White House and asked them what their priorities were, 
and it worked fairly well.
  The bottom line here is that this bill provides total discretionary 
and mandatory spending of $93.1 billion, which includes disaster relief 
of $2.4 billion and also includes the largest-ever increase for 
veterans' medical care, and also an increase of $2 billion for section 
8 housing vouchers.
  The bill nets out at $257 million dollars below our budget authority 
allocation. It also comes out $2 million below our budget allocation 
for outlays. I think that is a remarkable achievement considering the 
fact that we met all of the Congress's priorities, including the House 
and Senate and also the White House's priorities.
  We increased VA medical care $1.7 billion above the President's 
initial request, bringing the total to $19.6 billion. That account is 
fully offset.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump), 
the chairman of the full committee, as well as Members, including the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) on our subcommittee who 
worked so hard on the veterans' issues.
  Regarding HUD, which is the largest part of this subcommittee bill, 
it preserves the taxpayers' substantial investment in existing 
affordable housing stock by increasing public housing operating 
subsidies and modernization funds above the President's request.
  We felt very strongly that, with the huge investment that we have in 
public housing and while there are other options, including section 8, 
we need to take care of the existing housing stock and protect that 
investment. That we have. I thank the White House for coming forward 
and providing an additional offset so that we could increase operating 
subsidies by $135 million.
  Operating subsidies are at $3.138 billion, as I said, an increase of 
$135 million. And the capital improvement account is $2.9 billion, an 
increase of $345

[[Page H10043]]

 million. This provides funds for 60,000 new housing vouchers, as well, 
which are fully offset. That was a priority of Secretary Cuomo and of 
the White House and of my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan); and we were able to work that issue out so that I think 
everyone was more than satisfied with the resolution of that issue.
  Selective Service. We do provide funds for the regular operations of 
the Selective Service. The House vote was very strong in taking the 
position to end Selective Service. However, the Senate position 
prevailed. I think that debate will continue next year. Although, there 
are members of the subcommittee, including the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), who felt very strongly that we should hold 
to the Senate position.
  The Americorps program is funded at $434.5 million. This is a 
priority of the President. We knew that this bill would not achieve a 
Presidential signature if we did not resolve that, and we did.
  It also provides $2.5 billion for FEMA for disaster relief. Governor 
Hunt of North Carolina came in to see me, and I believe he saw the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) with the entire North 
Carolina delegation, Republican and Democrat, and made a very strong 
case that we need to have emergency funding.
  The CBO said that we would run out of money before the end of January 
next year, and we felt, quite frankly, that this would help our bill if 
we had disaster relief in the bill. It does not need to be offset. It 
is true emergency spending; and, therefore, it increased our allocation 
but did not break any budget caps. It was important to the people who 
have been suffering under the flood from Hurricane Floyd that we 
provide relief and give them some hope.
  On NASA, it provides an increase of $75 million for NASA, including a 
$152 million increase for vital aeronautics programs; and it fully 
funds current space science missions. I know Administrator Golden was 
very pleased with the end result. I spoke with him personally.
  Also, I know the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon) all weighed in very heavily for additional 
funds for NASA, just to name a few. There was very strong support for 
improving what the House position was for NASA.
  On EPA, we provided $7.59 billion for EPA, which is virtually level 
spending with fiscal year 1999. The conferees have kept the growth of 
the agency in check while providing at least $800 million over the 
budget request for State and local drinking water and waste water 
construction grants.
  We feel very strongly and the House held its position that we need to 
be there for our communities who are under court order to meet clean 
water standards. I agree the EPA needs to keep all of our communities' 
feet to the fire to clean up the water, to raise the drinking water 
quality standards in all of our lakes and rivers and water features 
around this country. It is critical. And this bill I think goes farther 
than many others have in the past to meeting that commitment to clean 
up our air and to clean up our water.
  I am very, very proud, Mr. Speaker, that, this being a Republican-led 
Congress, that we actually put more money in to resolve those clean 
water and clean air issues than the President, and I am very proud of 
that.
  I think that, just to be partisan for just one brief moment, our 
party has gotten criticism over the years, I think undeservedly so. And 
I think we stepped up to the plate in this bill, met our commitments, 
supported our local community, whether they were Republican or Democrat 
communities, supported them to meet the challenge of these court orders 
that they are under, all in keeping with making water cleaner. And we 
are doing that.
  The water in this country is getting cleaner as we speak, and I think 
we can all be very proud of that regardless of our party.
  Research at EPA is a priority, as well, as the conferees provided 
$645 million in new spending, a shade under last year.
  Lastly, the National Science Foundation reaches an all-time high of 
$3.9 billion, an increase of $241 million over fiscal year 1999.
  I think once again the Congress has shown its commitment to research 
and development, to the support of our research institutions, primarily 
our colleges and universities across the Nation who lead the world in 
research, who are making the investments now that will keep Americans 
living longer, healthier lives in a cleaner environment, with better 
jobs, better products, and keeping the United States competitive at the 
top of the game globally.
  This investment will pay huge dividends in the future, as it is doing 
today. This support once again demonstrates our commitment to science. 
People like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and again the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have argued very strongly 
for increasing National Science Foundation funds.
  Let me conclude my remarks by thanking my subcommittee members, who 
worked so hard and so long to make this product come out the way it 
did. I would like to thank our staff, who put in a tremendous amount of 
work. And it is not just the clerical work that they do. It is the 
advice that they provide, it is the experience that they have, it is 
the institutional memory that they bring to the table that makes our 
job so much easier.
  I would also like to thank the White House, President Clinton, OMB 
Director Jacob Lew for coming to the table I think in a very genuine 
way seeking to help us to solve some of our problems with us being able 
to help them solve some of their problems. And when they came and asked 
for additional spending, they said, we will provide the offsets. And 
they did provide the offsets.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this is a major commitment on the part of 
the Congress to a balanced budget. We will have a balanced budget this 
year, and to a large degree it is because of the work that we did to 
scrub this budget to get it in under our spending allocation. And we 
are going to do this. We are going to have this balanced budget on 
budget without affecting our Social Security Trust Fund.
  For the first time in 40 years, at least, we will bring a budget to 
the American people that is balanced, balanced on each side of the 
ledger, without reaching across and dipping into the Social Security 
Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, if it seems that I am very proud of this accomplishment, 
I am. But there is no way that it could have been accomplished without 
the support of all the others that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by expressing my most 
sincere appreciation to my chairman the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh). He has been totally fair and totally forthcoming throughout 
this process and has moved this bill with great skill.
  This has been a very difficult year to move appropriations bills, and 
it is a testament to his legislative ability that we are here this 
morning with a passable bill. It has been a real pleasure working with 
him. He is particularly capable. He is a class act.
  Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would like to take a moment to 
thank the staff who have all put in countless hours since we started 
our hearing process in February.
  First, I would like to thank the committee staff, including both the 
majority staff, Frank Cushing, Valerie Baldwin, Tim Peterson, Dena 
Baron, and their detailee Angela Snell; and on the minority side, two 
skilled and dedicated staffers, Del Davis and David Reich.
  I would also like to thank the personal staff of the chairman, Ron 
Anderson and John Simmons and, of course, my own personal staff, Lee 
Alman and Gavin Clingham, who have done a fine job working on this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is my first year as ranking minority member of this 
subcommittee and it has been quite an interesting year. I began this 
appropriations cycle thinking that this bill

[[Page H10044]]

could never pass the House. And now, several months later, we are 
through conference with a signable bill. And not only is it a signable 
bill, it is a good bill.
  Indeed, if one considers the circumstances under which this 
subcommittee was operating, this is a great bill. This success was made 
possible by the serious constructive manner in which all sides 
approached the conference process, by the skill of the chairman, and by 
the cooperation of the administration, particularly the 
administration's willingness to find the necessary budget offsets for 
some spending increases which the administration was urging.
  Without repeating the statement of the chairman, I would like to 
quickly run through just a few of the highlights of this conference 
report.
  First, for veterans' medical care. It provides a $1.7 billion 
increase over last year's level. This increase is vital in order to 
help the Department of Veterans' Affairs keep up with the medical needs 
of our Nation's veterans.
  In the housing area, the conference report provides for 60,000 
additional incremental section 8 housing assistance vouchers. That is, 
it appropriates sufficient funds, both to renew all existing section 8 
housing assistance contracts and to increase the number of families 
assisted by 60,000.
  This modest expansion of housing assistance is extremely important in 
light of the serious and growing unmet needs for affordable housing 
that exists in our country.
  The conference report also takes important steps to assist public 
housing, which remains a very important part of our overall national 
strategy for meeting the housing needs of low-income people. It 
increases public housing operating assistance by $320 million over the 
fiscal year 1999 level to help local housing authorities pay their 
utility bills and keep up with maintenance needs.
  It also provides $2.9 billion for public housing capital assistance, 
a bit less than the $3 billion provided last year but still well above 
the levels during the preceding several years.
  The measure also includes a $50 million increase in the section 202 
program that helps provide housing for low-income elderly people and a 
$45 million increase in grants for assistance to the homeless.
  I would like to express my appreciation to Secretary Cuomo here, who 
has tirelessly advocated for many of these increases.
  Before I leave the housing area, I should also mention that some very 
important authorizing has been incorporated into our legislation, 
namely part of H.R. 202.
  After this bill passed the House by an overwhelming vote last month, 
the bipartisan leadership of the banking committee and its housing 
subcommittee approached our subcommittee and asked if the legislation 
could be added to the appropriations bill to expedite its enactment.
  While I and others of the House conferees would have preferred to 
adopt H.R. 202 in its entirety just as it passed the House, we were not 
able to secure the agreement from the Senate conferees to do so.
  Nevertheless, the portions of H.R. 202 that we were able to add to 
the conference agreement takes some important steps to help keep 
project-based section 8 housing viable and to improve housing programs 
for the elderly and the disabled.
  The second part of the conference agreement of which I am especially 
proud is the funding for NASA. While the House-passed bill cut NASA 
substantially, the conference agreement provides $1 billion more and 
$75 million more than the budget request for NASA. The increases above 
the request are targeted to the science and aeronautics mission areas, 
which I think are particularly high priorities.

                              {time}  1115

  Some items of note within the NASA section of the conference report 
include an increase of $25 million for safety-related upgrades to space 
shuttle; an overall increase of $1.25 million above the budget request 
for space science, which represents $240 million over the House-passed 
level; increases of at least $130 million for various aeronautics 
programs involving development of new technologies for both aircraft 
and spacecraft; and $19.6 million for the space grant program.
  Also in the space science area, the conference agreement provides an 
increase for the National Science Foundation totaling about $240 
million above last year. This increase includes $50 million for the 
foundation's biocomplexity research initiative.
  Also included is $36 million for the construction of a five-teraflop 
computing facility, capable of trillions of calculations per second. 
This capability is essential if we are to continue our world leadership 
in information technology. And in that same vein I am pleased to report 
that this conference agreement has provided $75 million for the 
administration's IT-squared initiative.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the agreement appropriates about $2.5 
billion in emergency funding for the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, as requested by the administration. This appropriation 
will allow FEMA to continue to meet urgent needs in North Carolina and 
other States recently struck by national disasters as well as replenish 
FEMA's funds so that it will be able to respond quickly whenever the 
next disaster strikes.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, I think we present to the body today a good 
conference report that is certainly worthy of support. It is by no 
means an extravagant piece of legislation but it does provide some 
additional resources to maintain our leadership in science, help meet 
housing needs, respond to disasters, care for our veterans and 
accomplish other useful and important things.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report. I again express my 
appreciation to the gentleman from New York for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the VA-HUD conference report. 
I commend the gentleman from New York, our chairman, and the gentleman 
from West Virginia, our ranking member, for all their hard work and the 
hard work of our staff. The gentleman from West Virginia and the 
gentleman from New York work well together, and I think the product 
that we have today is fully supportable.
  While I am supportive of many provisions of this bill, including 
critical dollars for housing, most especially for housing for people 
with disabilities and older Americans, I am especially supportive of 
additional money for basic scientific research, further space 
exploration and the additional dollars to protect our environment as 
well as address so many natural disasters. I specifically want to 
commend the chairman and ranking member for standing in support of more 
funding for veterans medical care. We as Members of Congress are united 
in a most bipartisan manner in this and other regards.
  I am pleased that this conference report contains a record $1.7 
billion increase for veterans medical care added to the House bill. 
This additional funding will help countless veterans, many older, 
sicker, some nearly 100 percent dependent on the system for their 
health care and will mean increased access to service and improved 
quality of care. And, yes, we must as we pass these additional dollars 
reinvigorate our roles as committee members to assure that these 
dollars are well spent.
  I rise in support of the conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking minority 
member on the full committee.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers have said, there are many things 
about this bill that are good. It does a lot of things for a lot of 
people. But I have one simple question: Is there anybody around here, 
either on the floor or in any other congressional office on the House 
side of the Capitol who really knows what is going on around here in 
terms of the overall spending that will result by the end of the year?
  Yesterday we passed our biggest bill. That bill accounts for about 
half of all

[[Page H10045]]

discretionary spending in the budget. That bill was $9 billion over the 
President's request. The defense bill.
  Now we have a bill that is either the second or the third largest 
appropriations bill, and I think we ought to take a look at its 
increases. Veterans medical care is $1.7 billion above the President. I 
think that is fine. I would like to see that more. EPA is $400 million 
above the President. NASA is $75 million above. Now, each of those 
programs in and of themselves are worthy programs, and I would like in 
an ideal world to be spending more on all of them. But my question is, 
with what we did on defense yesterday, with what we are doing on this 
bill, where are we going to end up? What is the plan? Indeed, is there 
a plan to deal with our other critical needs?
  We have, I think, with the passage of this bill and a number of other 
bills, we are seeing Congress engage in a gigantic and repetitive shell 
game. We see double sets of books, we see innovative accounting, we 
order our own fiscal scorekeeper to simply ignore the fact that one of 
the bills that we passed will spend $10 billion more than his official 
numbers would otherwise indicate.
  What will the DOD bill do to our education priorities in the country, 
to our health priorities, to our job training priorities, to our 
efforts to reduce class sizes, to our efforts to produce school 
modernization? The answer is, nobody knows, because everybody is 
playing poker without knowing what their hold card is. You can lose an 
awful lot of money that way.
  So I would simply suggest, do whatever you want to do on this bill, 
there are good reasons to vote for it in and of itself, but the fact is 
that this House does not know what it is doing, it does not know what 
the end game is going to be, and certainly Members need to be aware of 
the fact that the appropriations bills on their present track contain 
over $42 billion in spending gimmicks, and, in fact, that means that, 
despite all of the declarations to the contrary, these budget bills are 
eating up virtually all of the non-Social Security surplus and are 
certainly at this point headed down the road to spend close to $20 
billion of the Social Security surplus.
  I say that simply in the interest of honest accounting, and I say 
that to simply urge Members once again to ask, where is this all going 
to wind up? The only way to work out a decent end is for this 
institution to sit down with the White House and have both parties 
represented and work out our differences so that we know what each of 
these bills is doing to other key national priorities that we also have 
an obligation to deal with.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin just spoke regarding the offsets in the 
bill. I would remind him that when we left the House with our bill, we 
did not use the $4.2 billion advance appropriation that the White House 
used and that ultimately the Senate used. So I thought that we did it 
the right way. However, this is a process of compromise and 
negotiation, and when the House position was different than the Senate 
and the White House, I felt that it would be in our best interest to 
work with those two the way they determined their allocation.
  Selfishly, it made our job a lot easier to use that offset. But the 
fact of the matter is that this is an accepted offset. It is scored. 
All of this bill is offset according to CBO and OMB. They are in 
agreement that the bill is offset properly. So, therefore, we are 
within our rules. As the gentleman knows so well, rules can be helpful 
and they can be a hindrance. In this case, I think the rules were 
helpful.
  As far as the offset, the $4.2 billion advance appropriation, the 
White House suggested that we use that to fund section 8 vouchers. 
Section 8 vouchers provide housing for America's poor. So there was a 
real effort to try to make sure we had additional vouchers, because the 
program is working. The problem is when you use an advance 
appropriation, it puts off the problem more or less until next year. 
The outlay rate in the first year is very low. In the second year it is 
very high. It creates problems for us in the future to do things this 
way is the bottom line.
  So what we suggested to the White House when we accepted this advance 
appropriation is, you folks need to sit down with us, with CBO, with 
the House and Senate leaders in the housing arena, authorizers and 
appropriators, and resolve this issue, because if we do not deal with 
it next year properly, this section 8 housing voucher problem could 
implode.
  We do need to deal with this in a realistic way with real money and 
with a long-term plan. Everybody agrees section 8 is a good program, 
but we need to make sure we fund it in a proper way. I am not convinced 
that advance appropriations are the best way to do this, and I think 
the White House and the Senate would agree with that. So it will be a 
challenge for us, especially for the authorizers working with us to 
make sure that if we are going to pursue this section 8 as a viable 
alternative to public housing, we need to fund it properly.
  Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a chart regarding the overall 
expenditures of the bill and the breakdown.
  The document referred to follows:

[[Page H10046]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.001



[[Page H10047]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.002



[[Page H10048]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.003



[[Page H10049]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.004



[[Page H10050]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.005



[[Page H10051]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.006



[[Page H10052]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I rise in support of the conference report. 
Though I voted against the original VA-HUD bill as it left this House, 
I tend to support this conference report. My concern at that time was 
that, though the original bill had good funding for veterans care, it 
significantly underfunded the NASA account. I am very pleased to see 
that the NASA funding problem was corrected in this bill. I want to 
commend the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from New 
York for their very, very hard work. They had a very, very difficult 
job. I really want to commend all the members of the conference 
committee on both sides of the aisle. I believe that this is a bill 
that Democrats and Republicans on both sides should be able to support.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek), a very effective, hardworking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report. I urge my colleagues to vote for this report. I do 
not think that anyone realizes the amount of cooperation and 
coordinated effort that was put into this between our ranking member 
and our chairperson and the hardworking staff and the members. I think 
there is sort of an attunement among the members of the VA-HUD 
committee. I think we work very well together for a common goal. There 
is a commitment there, there is expertise there, and this process was 
one that was apparent to all of us, that in the end it would create a 
very good result.

                              {time}  1130

  I am particularly happy about the housing part of the bill. Of course 
there are other parts of it that I take great pride in also, but I want 
to applaud what we did for veterans, what we did for NASA, what we did 
for EPA; but I am particularly proud of what the committee did for 
housing in that people I represent have a very dire need for better 
housing, and this conference report took this into consideration and 
provided considerably new support for affordable housing and to create 
better housing for low-income Americans. We know what the situation is 
in this country with rent, and this committee addressed that; and I 
want to applaud them and to ask my colleagues to please support this. 
It is worthy of their consideration.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me. Let me first comment briefly on the comments of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I was disappointed that he came in and 
basically rained on the parade here, because frankly I think everyone 
in this Chamber and everyone in the House is very pleased with this 
bill and with the result that the chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), and the ranking member have achieved. I am personally very 
pleased with it.
  Furthermore, on the issue of Social Security and dipping into Social 
Security, I hope we do not dip into Social Security this year, but even 
if we would have to dip into it slightly, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin observed, I would just point out that during the last year 
that he controlled the Committee on Appropriations the dip into Social 
Security was well over $60 billion, the entire amount available.
  Now let me get to the main point that I wanted to make, and that is 
to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for 
their work on this bill.
  I was responsible for circulating a letter which was signed by over 
80 House Members and sent to the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations urgently requesting that the National Science Foundation 
budget be increased above the House figures as they came out of this 
chamber. I am very pleased that Chairman Walsh was able to accomplish 
that. In fact, he did yeoman's work on the entire budget, but 
particularly on the budget of the National Science Foundation. 
Furthermore, what he has done on environmental issues is also very 
worthy, and I certainly appreciate it. I thank him and the rest of the 
members of the committee for their fine work on this bill.
  I urge that we adopt the conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), another hard-working member of our subcommittee 
and a very effective one.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and enthusiastic support of the 
VA-HUD and independent agencies' conference report. I will echo some of 
the comments that have been made already particularly by my colleague, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a few minutes ago. As the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) knows and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) knows, I represent the Marshall Space Flight 
Center and NASA Center back in Alabama. That first mark that we endured 
was quite a hit on NASA.
  I appreciate the gentleman from New York's work; I appreciate the 
gentleman from West Virginia's work to make sure that we restored that 
cut. We would do it, and we, in fact, did do it; but, as has been said, 
this does not just happen. It is because of the determination of the 
chairman, the determination of the ranking member that issues like this 
can be brought back to the table and kept alive. So I thank them very 
much on behalf of the NASA employees that I represent, as well as the 
staff of the subcommittee as well. I am a new member of this 
subcommittee. They have made the experience of working on this 
subcommittee very, very pleasurable.
  This is a good bill, a bill that the Members should vote for. The 
conference report is a fair conference report. Our investment in 
veterans' health care issues, the emergency funds to FEMA, especially 
in light of the devastation brought on by Hurricane Floyd, the 
significant reinvestment in HUD, the re-commitment to NASA as well. All 
of those are reasons why this conference report should pass, and I 
thank my ranking member, and I thank the chairman for being so patient 
with some of us that were in an awkward position as we negotiated 
through this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the VA-HUD and Independent 
Agencies Conference Report. In this bill we have been able to provide a 
substantial investment in Veteran's Health Care, provide emergency 
funds to FEMA to address the devastation brought on by Hurricane Floyd, 
and significantly invest in HUD and NASA. So this is a good bill, 
negotiated in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a few minutes to express my 
appreciation for all of the hard work that Chairman Walsh and Ranking 
Member Mollohan have put into this bill in order to get us to this 
point. I also want to express my appreciation for all of the hard work 
of the staff over the last few weeks. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a new 
Member to this subcommittee. And it was just my luck that the very year 
that I was able to finally come over to the subcommittee--NASA, which 
has Marshall Space Flight Center in my district, took a $1.4 billion 
dollar hit in the House subcommittee mark. Our continued investment in 
NASA today will inevitably pay off down the line in terms of real and 
tangible benefits. I am also pleased that we were able to reach 
agreement on some of the more sticky issues dealing with HUD's funding.
  Under the conference agreement, we were able to provide funding for 
an additional 60,000 section 8 vouchers, increase the funding to public 
housing operating assistance, and provide additional funds for HUD's 
homeless assistance and prevention programs. In addition, the 
compromise reached on the Community Builders program demonstrates what 
invaluable resources these public servants have been to HUD's 
management reform process and to communities across the country. I know 
that negotiations around these issues were tense, so I'm glad we were 
able to come to a suitable compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report we are considering 
today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill so that it can 
be sent to the President and signed into law.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time; and I rise, Mr. Speaker, in strong

[[Page H10053]]

support of this conference agreement, and I do want to thank 
wholeheartedly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) for their indefatigable efforts to increase two important 
agencies in our Nation's scientific enterprise, NASA and the National 
Science Foundation. I have a deep concern that the very tight budget 
allocations that were imposed on that House bill did not provide these 
agencies with adequate funding, and I am pleased that the conference 
report increases the House levels and restores enough funding for these 
agencies to sufficiently meet their critical national missions.
  As my colleagues know, before this conference report there might have 
been a loss of about 2,500 jobs and one half of them from Maryland, 
Virginia and the District of Columbia region, also impacting 
contractors. This is Goddard Space Center, university R&D, important 
scientific projects. Scientific research and growth is critical to our 
Nation's continued economic prosperity, and I want to commend the 
chairman for recognizing the importance of maintaining our 
technological preeminence.
  I also want to comment that I am pleased that the conferees have 
funded the housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, the HOPWA 
program at $232 million. This is $7 million above the fiscal year 1999 
program. This program enjoys wide bipartisan support, and it is the 
only Federal program that provides cities and States with the resources 
to specifically address the housing crisis facing people with AIDS, and 
it is also financially solvent. It saves us money actually doing that.
  I further want to applaud the conferees for including provisions of 
H.R. 202 to provide grants to States to preserve privately owned 
affordable housing servicing low-income individuals and families. 
Additionally, this conference provides HUD with authority to offer 
enhanced vouchers to elderly and disabled residents.
  Finally, I want to comment on the fact that $300,000 for the Potomac 
River Visions Initiative is included in this conference report. This 
long-range project will preserve and enhance the resources of the 
Potomac River watershed. My colleagues, you can see that I 
enthusiastically support this conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the distinguished authorizer.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the chairman and ranking 
member are entitled to congratulations for doing a very good job in 
very difficult circumstances. The difficult circumstances is the 
unrealistically low budget allocation that they were given, and I think 
the job they did as well as what they left undone, not because of their 
own faults, but because of what they had to work with, is very 
important for us to focus on. What they did was to show that we can 
work within a given amount of resources in both a bipartisan way, and 
we can also overcome some of the committee jurisdictional problems that 
sometimes beset us.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Opportunity, I work with the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Lazio), along with the appropriators so the language that we developed 
and put through the House in the authorizing area to protect existing 
tenants in various subsidized programs is now made part of the law and 
funded simultaneously, and that is very important.
  We have a lot of people out there in housing and have been out there 
for a while who were threatened with the loss of their housing, and 
they can now be assured, those who are in these programs, the section 8 
program and the assisted housing program, that existing tenancies will 
be protected, and protected not just for a year, but as long as they 
are around; and I think that is a very important commitment that we 
ought to reaffirm.
  In addition, I am very pleased that they voted some new vouchers 
because we have an enormous housing crisis in this country. We have 
millions of hard-working Americans who cannot afford to live decently 
or can do that only by biting into other parts of their income, and it 
was important that we did it. But it is also important to note how much 
we have left undone, and I want to say I am particularly struck that so 
many of my Republican colleagues have come to the floor and accurately 
praised this bill for funding government programs.
  But let us be clear of what we are talking about. We are talking 
about my Republican colleagues joining us and congratulating ourselves 
for spending government money because there is too often a kind of 
semantic separation, a disconnect, in which everybody is for the 
particulars and nobody is for the general, and let us understand this.
  One cannot have a whole that is smaller than the sum of the parts; 
one cannot be for more housing for the elderly, for adequately funding 
the National Science Foundation, take credit for better veterans' 
health, do more for environmental protection, and simultaneously boast 
at how little money they are spending, and that is the dilemma we are 
in. We have a political and idealistic attachment to striking the 
whole, while we have a realistic understanding of the importance of the 
parts, and the time has come no longer to subject people like the 
gentleman from New York and the gentleman from West Virginia to the 
need to do contortions, jumps and loops.
  Let us get a more realistic overall amount so that next year when 
Republicans and Democrats again come and congratulate ourselves for 
intelligently spending tax dollars on various important social needs, 
we will have done it with a lot less acrobatics.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia and the gentleman from New York for a bill that really speaks 
to the needs of Hurricane Floyd victims in North Carolina. I toured 
last week on behalf of this Congress, and I saw the tragedy in its 
worst possible case. People can look to us here in Washington, the 
Federal Government. Because of this bill they know we care, they know 
we are going to do something to help them rebuild their lives and their 
businesses. They know that we are aware and will move as quickly as we 
can to help them in their hour of need again.
  I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for their efforts. A good bill. I 
heartily support it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the VA HUD conference 
agreement. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), and also the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their excellent work in dramatically 
improving this bill since it left this House. I also want to thank 
Secretary Cuomo for his tireless efforts and commitment to the housing 
needs of those with minimum resources in this country. As someone who 
represents one of the highest housing cost areas in the Oakland/San 
Francisco Bay area, I am especially supportive of this effort.
  The conference report is really a better bill because it includes 
additional section 8 housing preservation and tenant protection. We are 
rapidly losing hard-gained section 8 housing because of high rents. 
This bill now allows for some rent increases to preserve such housing. 
It also gives additional protections to tenets by promoting housing 
preservation with specific mechanisms to bring in local resources to 
work with HUD to do everything possible to protect our existing housing 
stock for low income tenets.
  The shocking fact of housing in this country is that there are from 5 
million to over 12 million people who are in housing that is grossly 
substandard who have to pay over 50 percent of their income for 
housing. The Washington Post had an excellent story on this just 2 days 
ago. How we respond to such facts, to me, is a true test of our ethical 
and moral sense.
  This bill comes a bit closer to our desperate housing needs by 
providing $690 million and 60,000 section 8 vouchers more than the 
House bill. It also better attends to the housing needs of our elderly 
and disabled by increasing

[[Page H10054]]

living facilities which are assisted, service coordinators, capital 
repairers, elderly housing debt forgiveness and other mechanisms; and 
for our very important veterans it provides 1.7 billion more than 
fiscal 1999 and 1.8 billion more than requested by the administration.
  Of course like some, I too am not pleased with the funny accounting 
devices; but we must see this as a cup that is half full rather than 
half empty. I ask my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
committee report, and I would just like to suggest that the people who 
are doing the work on VA-HUD appropriations have a very tough job.

                              {time}  1145

  It is, perhaps, one of the toughest assignments in Washington to try 
to handle the appropriations for VA-HUD, because it includes such a 
broad range of issues that we have to deal with and a broad range of 
concerns and interest groups.
  I oversee the NASA budget in terms of the authorization side of the 
House, and I work very closely with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh). And I want my colleagues to know that just the authorizing 
process is hard, and I know that the appropriations side of it has to 
be twice as hard with people putting pressure on us from all 
directions.
  Those involved with this VA-HUD conference actually have had to deal 
not just with the authorizers versus the appropriators and NASA, but 
they have had to deal with pressures from interest groups from as wide 
a variety as any group in this Congress.
  So I appreciate the job that they have done. I might have a few 
disagreements, but the fact is that they have done a good job with what 
they could do and especially in a time like this when there has been 
such maximum pressure on them from not only the different groups that 
need to be taken care of, but also the overall country's need to 
balance the budget and how to proceed with the budget restrictions that 
we have.
  So I will be supporting this measure today, and I am very happy that 
we have established a good working relationship between the authorizers 
and the appropriators, and we will continue to try to do that in the 
time ahead. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this 
conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill. This is a vastly 
improved bill over the original House bill because there are 
significant improvements in housing programs, NASA, EPA and veterans' 
medical care.
  I especially want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), my friend and New York colleague, who really has done an 
excellent job in terms of putting this bill together and working to 
include everybody into this bill. Housing funding is increased $2.4 
billion, raising the funding to $28.6 billion. NASA's budget increased. 
Veterans' medical care increased by $1.7 billion, and there is $3 
million, of interest for me particularly, in the subcommittee report 
for renovations to the Bronx VA, the Veterans Administration, which 
will be working in connection with Mount Sinai School of Medicine. 
There is also $1 million in the subcommittee report for the Carl Sagan 
Center and the Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center in 
Bronx, New York. Those are two very important programs.
  So this bill is a vast improvement over the original bill. I look 
forward to voting for the bill today and working with the Chairman to 
make these projects a reality. I again want to compliment my friend, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for the fine work that he has 
done.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  (Mr. McINTOSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership on this VA-HUD bill, particularly 
for wrestling with many very difficult questions. One of them that we 
have taken up in my oversight subcommittee is the question of the EPA's 
continued effort to implement the Kyoto protocol, in spite of language 
that was put into the bill last year indicating that it was the intent 
of Congress not to use funds appropriated for that purpose.
  I will report to the body and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) that during the conference on October 6, Mr. Gary Guzy, who is 
the EPA's general counsel, reported and stuck by their position that 
they have the ability to regulate carbon dioxide, in spite of the fact 
that the structure of the statute, the intent of the Clean Air Act is 
that they do not have the authority to regulate that substance.
  At this time, I would include a letter from the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the ranking member on the Committee on 
Commerce and chaired the conference in 1990 when the Clean Air Act 
amendments were passed. His letter said, in part, ``The House and 
Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a 
pollutant for regulatory or other purposes.''
  I will include that letter at this point in the Record.

                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1999.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on 
         Government Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based 
     on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by 
     the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the 
     Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as 
     methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call 
     my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to 
     Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation 
     Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The 
     Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean 
     Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The 
     latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 
     1990 amendments.
       First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any 
     provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, 
     such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address 
     global climate change. The House, however, did include 
     provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on 
     Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
       Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed 
     amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points 
     out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and 
     global warming, along with provisions implementing the 
     Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol 
     related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate 
     conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
       However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of 
     November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the 
     CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 
     819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions 
     separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers 
     to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public Law 
     does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all 
     of the provisions included the Public Law.
       One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, 
     entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases 
     Contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United 
     States Code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires 
     regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide 
     emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V'' 
     of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be 
     reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon 
     dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose.
       Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled 
     ``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time 
     by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no 
     regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title 
     amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) 
     through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution 
     Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory 
     strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.'' 
     While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon 
     dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never 
     agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for 
     regulatory or other purposes.
       Based on my review of this history and my recollection of 
     the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the 
     House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory 
     provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced 
     section 821), contemplated

[[Page H10055]]

     regulating greenhouse gas emissions or addressing global 
     warming under the Clean Air Act. Shortly after enactment of 
     Public Law 101-549, the United Nations General Assembly 
     established in December 1990 the Intergovernmental 
     Negotiating Committee that ultimately led to the Framework 
     Convention on Climate Change, which was ratified by the 
     United States after advice and consent by the Senate. That 
     Convention is, of course, not self-executing, and the 
     Congress has not enacted implementing legislation authorizing 
     EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse gases.
       I hope that this is responsive.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                   Ranking Member.

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, the law and the legislative history is 
clear about this point, and there are some questions that still remain 
in this bill because it contains the language, which I wholly endorse, 
authored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) saying that 
EPA cannot spend funds to further implement the Kyoto protocol, but 
there are some unanswered questions in the legislative report whether 
the House intent on that or the Senate intent prevails, or, as I would 
hope would happen, they would both be governing on the executive branch 
as they spend funds from this bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With regard to the previous speaker's comments, I would just like to 
make clear that there have been efforts as the process has moved 
forward, both this year and last year, to effect authorizations in the 
clean air area on our appropriation bill. It is a particularly 
complicated subject, difficult for the authorizers to deal with, as is 
evidenced by the way it is dealt with by them, and the appropriations 
bill is a particularly inappropriate place to try to deal with them.
  The appropriations process is an inappropriate place to deal with 
clean air authorizing issues; trying to impact interpretations in that 
area and comments as we debate a conference report is equally or more 
inappropriate place to deal with it. There is a difference on the Kyoto 
issue between the House and the Senate report. The administration has 
its interpretation of that.
  Going back to the compromise language on Kyoto that was contained in 
last year's appropriation report, they would maintain that that is the 
interpretation that applies this year. The gentleman can add his 
interpretation on that and they can debate it, but I would submit that 
comments offered in the course of this debate on this conference report 
do not impact the legislative intent in any way with regard to the 
Kyoto issue.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time at this 
time, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the VA-HUD 
conference report.
  When the bill was debated on this floor, I offered two amendments. 
One would have restored funding for HOPWA, the Housing Opportunities 
for People With AIDS, to the level of the fiscal year 1999 budget which 
was provided for in the Senate bill, but was not provided for in the 
House bill. The HOPWA amendment was accepted by this body.
  Unfortunately, the second amendment which I offered which sought to 
increase funding for new Section 8 vouchers; that is, to provide 
funding for new Section 8 vouchers and increase the public housing 
operating fund was not accepted.
  I am happy that reason and compassion have prevailed in the 
conference report. The conference report provides $347 million to fund 
60,000 new Section 8 housing vouchers and to increase the public 
housing operating fund. Furthermore, HOPWA's funding was increased by 
$7 million above the Senate level. The report will go a long way in 
assisting people with AIDS and assisting people in finding affordable 
housing to make the necessary repairs they so desperately need. We have 
not provided new Section 8 housing vouchers for over 2 years.
  The need for housing assistance remains staggering. Today, over 5 
million low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their income 
for rent or live in severely substandard housing. Not one of these 5 
million families receives any Federal housing assistance. Their needs 
are desperate and in this bill today, in this conference report, we 
have chosen to begin to address the severity of those needs; and that 
is progress.
  So again, I urge support of the VA-HUD conference report.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise to applaud the work of my colleagues in the House and the 
other body.
  Two months ago, the Committee on Appropriations reported out a House 
spending bill that cut $1 billion from critical housing programs. This 
was done while our Nation faces a dire crisis in housing. In Chicago 
alone, 35,000 families are on the waiting list for public housing; and, 
across the country, over 5 million households faced worst-case housing 
needs. Not only were these cuts proposed in the face of great need, but 
they were proposed in a time of great plenty. Our economy is in the 
middle of its strongest run ever, and the Federal Government is 
reporting budget surpluses. It hardly seemed like the time to cut 
critical investment in housing for seniors, families, and others on low 
and fixed incomes.
  Today, however, House and Senate conferees have improved that bill 
and are reporting a bill that actually increases spending for housing. 
There is over $400 million more than the President requested for public 
housing programs. Homeless assistance is increased $25 million over 
last year. The HOPWA program will receive $7 million more than last 
year. Housing for persons with disabilities will receive $5 million 
more than last year. Housing for our Nation's elderly will get $50 
million more than last year, and the conferees funded 60,000 new rental 
vouchers for families to use in the private rental market.
  Moreover, the conference increased spending in economic development 
programs. These programs allow State and local governments to encourage 
business and create good-paying jobs. When the housing budget was first 
proposed late last summer, I and other colleagues in the House and 
people and organizations across the country rose in outrage. We ought 
to have fought cutting housing when we had so much while so many people 
had so little. But now, I am happy to rise and applaud the final 
product, which has done an about-face and increases investment in 
people by increasing our investment in their housing and jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to give a resounding vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time. I just want 
to respond to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Mollohan. He and I have 
had a lot of agreements; we have had some disagreements. And I notice 
that in his comments he made reference to language that appeared in the 
fiscal year 1999 report. I am here to say that we differ strongly on 
that; and I think as a Member of this committee, as a senior Member, 
that I should state that the language, the intent of both the House and 
the Senate should be referred to. It should be referenced, and it 
should not just simply be fiscal year 1999, because that language is in 
the ash can of history, in my judgment. We should look at fiscal year 
2000.
  So my belief is that it is important that I at least get that out as 
an additional view of this report. It does not say that we are not 
going to have this debate in the future, but I do believe it is clear 
that he and I differ. And I think I should get that report, that 
comment on the record.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Regrettably, I feel compelled to respond to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  If he is trying to establish a legislative history with regard to the 
Kyoto language, I repeat that I think this is a poor place to do it. 
The facts are that there is language in the House report on that 
subject. The language in the

[[Page H10056]]

Senate report differs, and there could not be any consensus drawn of 
the congressional intent with regard to that topic by looking at the 
2000 report, the report accompanying this bill. The language in the 
1999 report accompanying the VA appropriations was agreed to by both 
the House and the Senate.
  I leave it to the lawyers, if it gets to that, to debate what 
actually reflects the legislative intent of the Congress on that topic. 
However, I would note that the Senate worked long and hard for 2 years 
now on this language. That language was agreed to by both bodies in 
last year's report. This year, there was not agreement on the Kyoto 
language between the House and the Senate. So that I do not think one 
can draw a conclusion that the Congress has spoken on that issue in 
unison this year.

                              {time}  1200

  On the other hand, one could draw a conclusion that the last time the 
Congress spoke on the issue in agreement was in the 1999 report.
  Not that this clarifies anything, except to suggest that I would not 
agree with the gentleman that the language coming out of the report 
accompanying this year's bill would determine legislative intent in any 
way on this topic.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just take one second, once again, to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for his 
cooperation on this bill. I have enjoyed working with the gentleman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with similar 
expressions of appreciation for his many courtesies during this 
process, and for his allowing the minority all along the process to 
participate in a very meaningful way in bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Again, I repeat that it is a testament to his skill and legislative 
leadership that we are bringing this kind of a bill to the floor in a 
very bipartisan way in a year in which it is terribly difficult to do 
that.
  If the chairman would allow me to express appreciation to members on 
the minority side of the subcommittee, to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer), they were all very hard-working members on the subcommittee 
throughout the year to bring this bill where we are today.
  I very much appreciate their efforts in working with them, as well as 
the chairman and the majority members.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I note that the statement of the managers in 
the VA-HUD FY 2000 Conference Report directs HUD to honor its prior 
agreements for Section 8 projects which already have gone through one 
of the Reengineering Demonstration Programs and entered into a HUD use 
agreement providing for budget-based rents. This direction was inserted 
in the conference report to ensure that the limited number of such 
projects which did not also have their mortgages restructured at the 
time, would not now have to go through a mortgage restructuring--which 
can only be done at significant cost and expense to the project and to 
the government.
  One such project, Canal Park Tower, is located in my district in 
downtown Akron, Ohio, where it provides more than 190 efficiency units 
for the elderly and disabled. Canal Park Tower provides on-site 
congregate meals and support services for the project's residents. 
Canal Park Tower is an important element in Akron's effort to meet the 
needs of its low-income elderly and disabled.
  Last Year, after receiving a Section 8 commitment from HUD, the owner 
entered into a use agreement with HUD under which the project's rents 
were reset on a budget basis instead of being restructured. Under the 
use agreement, the owner was required to continue to accept Section 8 
assistance and to continue to provide low-income housing for a 20-year 
period. The owner had earlier made a different proposal to HUD which 
involved mortgage restructuring. In the end, HUD determined the project 
inappropriate for mortgage restructuring. At HUD's insistence, the 
project went forward with budget-based rents.
  The Managers recognized that it would be unfair at this late date to 
force the owner to go through a mortgage restructuring. In doing so, 
the managers have resolved a nagging issue that has worried residents 
and low-income housing advocates throughout Akron. I am sure I am not 
alone in commending them for their attention to this narrow issue.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2000 VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Conference Report. My colleagues 
have worked hard to craft a bill that a majority of us can support, and 
I applaud their efforts. The conference report provides vital funding 
to help address our nation's housing needs, fund science and technology 
research, and keep our commitment to our veterans.
  Although the bill does not fund all of our housing priorities, it 
does take a significant step towards helping low- and moderate-income 
Americans afford a safe place to live by providing 60,000 new Section 8 
vouchers to help families with worst-case housing needs. The bill also 
provides substantial increases in support for public housing programs, 
homeless assistance, housing for persons living with AIDS, senior 
housing, and programs for disabled citizens.
  The conference report also includes funding for economic development 
projects in our cities and towns. The Community Development Block 
Grants, HOME, and Brownfields Redevelopment programs all received 
additional funding in this bill.
  In addition, the bill provides $70 million for the Urban and Rural 
Empowerment Zones. While this is substantially less than these 
communities were promised, I will continue to work with my colleagues 
to secure full funding for this important initiative next year.
  With respect to Veterans Affairs, the conference report provides 
$44.3 billion for the programs and benefits administered by the 
Department of Veterans. This represents a four percent, or $1.7 
billion, increase above Fiscal Year 1999 levels. Of the amounts 
provided in the conference report, $19.6 billion is for veterans 
medical care, $21.6 billion is for compensation benefits for veterans 
who suffer from service connected disabilities, $65 million is provided 
for construction and renovation on VA facilities, and $48 million is 
provided for transitional housing for the thousands of homeless 
veterans across the country.
  Additonally, the conference report proclaims success for the future 
of cutting edge science and technology. NASA will receive $13.7 billion 
in Fiscal Year 2000. This is an eight percent increase from the 
original numbers previously proposed in the House of Representatives.
  Through civilian space flight, exploration, scientific advancement, 
and the development of next-generation technologies, NASA has 
successfully ensured U.S. leadership in world aviation and space 
exploration. Clearly this bill represents a victory for the United 
States and its future in space exploration. While I regret that the 
International Space Station will only be funded at $2.3 billion, I am 
pleased that NASA has been given the resources to continue its mission 
to conduct space and aeronautical research, development, and flight 
activities to maintain U.S. superiority in aeronautics and space 
exploration. I look forward to promoting space endeavors in the future.
  Along with NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) also was 
granted an eight percent increase over the original H.R. 2684 levels. 
With the $3.9 billion appropriated, NSF can continue to support basic 
and applied research, science and technology policy research, and 
science and engineering education programs. This bill provides $697 
million for NSF to continue its math and science education initiatives.
  Through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements, NSF supports 
fundamental and applied research in all major scientific and 
engineering disciplines. NSF funding is a key investment in the future 
of advanced technologies and reaffirms America's strong and 
longstanding leadership in scientific research and education.
  As a result of these long-awaited and anxiously anticipated increases 
in funding of critical programs that are key to our nation's well-being 
and future success, I am pleased to support this bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the House of 
Representatives to speak in strong support of funding increases for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Last month I was proud to support the 
passage of H.R. 2684, the FY 2000 Veterans Affairs/Housing and Urban 
Development and Related Agencies (VA/HUD) Appropriations Act. The bill 
contained $1.7 billion more than FY 1999 and $1.8 billion more than the 
President's request for FY 2000 VA Appropriations.
  The Veterans Integrated Services Network 12 (VISN 12) conducted a 
study and reported six options to save money within the VISN. Of the 
six options, only one would not move services from the North Chicago VA 
to other VA hospitals within the VISN, or completely close the North 
Chicago hospital. This option study was delivered to my office the day 
after the

[[Page H10057]]

House passed its version of H.R. 2684, thus preventing any legislative 
action by the House, which could prevent any reorganization or closure 
within VISN 12.
  Today, I was pleased to read the Conference Report containing strong 
language to include veterans groups, medical schools having an 
affiliation with a VA hospital, employee representatives, and any other 
interested parties as stakeholders to be consulted by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs before any reorganization within VISN 12 occurs. 
Although, the VA hospital in North Chicago only borders my district, a 
large number of veterans from my district use the North Chicago 
hospital for treatment. Many of the veterans from the northeastern part 
of the state seek medical treatment at North Chicago, because the only 
other option is to travel a minimum of an hour either north to 
Milwaukee or south to Chicago.
  Unfortunately, the Conference Report to H.R. 2684 increases spending 
$7.5 billion over the House-passed version, but does not provide 
additional funding for VA programs. However, the Conference Report does 
spend more money on programs like NASA, $13.7 billion, $999 million 
more than the House approved initially, $7.5 billion for EPA, an 
increase of $284 million over the House version and, $438.5 million for 
AmeriCorps, which the House version eliminated. Finally, the Conference 
Report restores a $3 billion reduction to the Tennessee Valley 
Authority's (TVA) borrowing authority just to name a few increases.
  I am very supportive of our veterans in Illinois, but because of 
these increases in spending noted, I am unable to vote in favor of the 
Conference Report to H.R. 2684.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference 
Report to H.R. 2684, the ``FY 2000 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act.'' Let me commend the Chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Mr. Walsh, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Mollohan, for 
their tremendous work in completing one of the most complex and 
jurisdictionally-diverse funding bills before Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of provisions that are included 
in the bill before us under title V, entitled ``Preserving Affordable 
Housing for Seniors and Families into the 21st Century.'' This 
legislation is the product of months of work among Republicans and 
Democrats in both bodies and the Administration to deal with one of the 
most pressing social needs in recent years--the need for safe, secure, 
affordable housing.
  Our proposal addresses the so-called Section 8 ``opt-out'' problem 
where hundreds of thousand of affordable housing units would have been 
at risk of being lost over the next several years as rental assistance 
contracts with the Federal Government expire in increasing numbers. Our 
legislation protects seniors, individuals with disabilities and low-
income families living in assisted housing from displacement in opt-out 
circumstances, and encourages the preservation of the housing as 
affordable where possible. ``Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors 
and Families into the 21st Century'' passed the House freestanding on 
September 27, 1999, by an overwhelming vote of 405 to five.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today is one of the 
most important housing bills in recent years, and would affect the 
lives of millions of low-income families across the country. The loss 
of affordable housing in my home state of Iowa first generated national 
attention to the critical nature of the problem. More than 15,000 
families in Iowa, and more than 500,000 across the country would 
potentially be at risk of losing their homes if we do not act.
  Without the cooperation and assistance of Members from both sides of 
the aisle as well as the Administration we could not be here today. 
Under the leadership of Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development has been a key player throughout the 
entire process in our efforts to protect vulnerable families from 
displacement and to preserve affordable housing. Our work together on 
this legislation is one of the most significant efforts of truly 
bipartisan cooperation of the 106th Congress.
  Above all, let me recognize the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee 
and author of the bill, Mr. Lazio, for his leadership and tireless 
dedication to provide affordable housing and community development 
opportunities to those least able to provide for themselves.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2684, this year's VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, is truly the culmination of 
bipartisan efforts to meet the critical shelter needs of many of our 
most vulnerable citizens. I want to commend my friend and fellow New 
Yorker, Jim Walsh, the Chairman of the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee, for producing a bill of which all of us in 
the House and Senate can be proud. I also want to thank Mr. Walsh for 
working closely with me to ensure that certain provisions from housing 
authorization bills that I have sponsored and supported are included in 
this bill.
  Let me briefly explain some of these provisions, which compose Title 
V of H.R. 2684. This portion of the bill contains many original 
provisions from H.R. 202, the ``Preserving Affordable Housing for 
Senior Citizens and Families into the 21st Century Act'' a bill 
Chairman Leach and I introduced this year. Also contained in this 
appropriations bill are provisions from H.R. 1336, the ``Emergency 
Residents Protection Act,'' which was introduced by Chairman Leach, 
Rep. Jim Walsh, and myself earlier this year. There are also parts of 
H.R. 1624, the ``Elderly Housing Quality Improvement Act'', introduced 
by Mr. LaFalce, Ranking Member of the Banking Committee.
  These various authorization bills have been the subjects of numerous 
Committee hearings during the 106th Congress. Majority and Minority 
Committee staff worked, along with the Administration, for the last 
several months to develop a bipartisan consensus product supported by 
the Committee Republican and Democratic leadership, and which combined 
the best ideas from these various pieces of legislation into a new H.R. 
202. The Banking Committee reported out the resulting legislation by 
unanimous vote. H.R. 202 passed the House under suspension of the rules 
on September 27th by a vote of 405 to 5. In short, Mr. Speaker, the 
provisions of H.R. 202 enjoy overwhelming, bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill encompasses a broad spectrum of ideas. And 
they are all the right ideas to help America's seniors and other 
vulnerable citizens find affordable housing.
  On the horizon, a gray dawn is approaching where more and more 
Americans will live longer and enjoy more active, healthy lives. More 
than 33 million people in the United States are now 65 years of age and 
older, and by the year 2020 that number will grow to almost 53 million. 
That is one in every six Americans. In this environment of a graying 
population, we should celebrate this new-found longevity, but we must 
not overlook the fact that millions of senior citizens will suffer a 
crisis of safe, affordable housing if we fail to prepare for it. These 
senior citizens, who created the foundation of greatness of this nation 
that we all enjoy today, deserve to know that they will be taken care 
of.
  These seniors are the same people who guided America through the 
Great Depression; the same people who served us on the front lines and 
on the assembly lines in world War II; the same people who led the 
nation to superpower strength following the war. Some may have even 
lost a leg or their sight in the war or in a factory accident. They 
have provided an almost unspeakable service to each and every American 
alive today and made sacrifices which some of us with fewer years can 
hardly imagine.
  We would be failing them if we did not help provide them the same 
security they have given us. They deserve the sense of security that 
would come from knowing they can stay in their current housing and 
continue to build a life there. And they deserve the peace of mind that 
comes with knowing they have a place to lay their head at night.
  This bill would provide that peace of mind. This bill in fact 
reauthorizes the Section 202 program, the primary method of federal 
assistance for low-income senior citizens, and the section 811 program, 
which provides affordable housing for disabled citizens. In addition, 
the legislation creates a commission to study elderly housing issues 
and recommend how best to provide for the elderly. This bill also 
contains streamlined refinancings of Section 236 projects so we can 
provide more resources to these projects for the benefit of the 
residents. Finally, certain reforms to the Section 811 program 
affecting the size of projects, supported by advocacy groups for the 
disabled, are also included in the legislation.

  The provisions in this bill are designed to protect our seniors, the 
disabled, and our vulnerable families from displacement or drastic rent 
increases. Indeed, by incorporating much of H.R. 1336, Title V of this 
bill addresses the so-called Section 8 ``opt-out problem'', which is 
caused by owners opting not to renew their Section 8 contracts upon 
expiration. The Housing Subcommittee held hearings earlier this year on 
the problem of expiring Section 8 contracts, and found that a 
significant number of owners that were indicating they planned to ``opt 
out'' of the Section 8 program. Five hundred thousand units were ``at-
risk'' over the next five years of being lost as affordable housing.
  Mr. Speaker, the Section 8 opt-out problem was characterized by many 
as the most significant housing crisis facing our nation. With this 
bill, this Congress has taken affirmative, concrete action to solve 
this housing problem.
  Finally, while some of the provisions of H.R. 202 are not included in 
Title V, we hope to accomplish many of the same goals through report 
language. As an example, this legislation directs HUD to streamline the 
existing Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program, allowing seniors more 
flexibility to maximize the equity in their homes. Mr. Speaker, to the 
extent that

[[Page H10058]]

certain reforms in H.R. 202, pertaining to the 202 elderly and 811 
disabled program are not included in this bill, it is my intent to work 
with the Minority and our authorizing counterparts from the Senate to 
see that these improvements are in fact enacted in the next session. I 
look forward to that risk.
  This bill truly incorporates a 21st century model of housing, where 
creativity and partnering combine to result in a compassionate piece of 
legislation that will result in security and peace of mind for some of 
our most cherished citizens. Today we stand with our seniors and 
provide them a variety of programs that will help them as they more 
into their twilight years.
  I thank Chairman Walsh for his leadership, and thank all the members 
of the Appropriations Committee for working with the Republican and 
Democratic authorizers from the Banking Committee, in such a bipartisan 
manner to solve these problems.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend a sincere thanks to 
Chairman Walsh, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Mollohan, for their support 
of funding Sacramento projects included in the conference report on 
H.R. 2684, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations for FY 2000.
  I would first like to thank the committee in providing support to the 
Sacramento Combined Sewer System. The City of Sacramento's 100 year old 
combined sewer system is no longer capable of handling both the 
stormwater and sanitary wastewater flows it was designed to carry. The 
City remains committed to providing a minimum 50 percent of the cost 
share in meeting the construction-related needs of this project. It 
will complement overall efforts to improve the California Bay-Delta's 
water quality and will greatly assist the City's efforts to protect the 
public health. Most importantly, the project will stop the flow of 
sewage into City streets and the Sacramento River, which serves as the 
primary source of drinking water for more than 20 million Californians.
  Additionally, I also appreciate the committee's continued support for 
the Sacramento River Toxic Pollutant Control Program. The Sacramento 
River currently exceeds water quality criteria recommended by the state 
of California and EPA for metals such as copper, mercury and lead. Past 
funding provided by Congress has been used to successfully organize a 
multiyear monitoring and management effort with a regional stakeholder 
group that includes representatives of federal, state, and local 
agencies, agriculture and industry organizations, environmental 
organizations, and public interest groups. Together, the region has 
developed an integrated water quality monitoring program in 
collaboration with other ongoing efforts in the watershed, leveraging 
resources among programs and producing consistent reliable information 
on important water quality characteristics. Continued funding will 
allow the region to move forward with critical steps needed in the 
development of the pollutant reduction plan.
  Finally, I am grateful that the Committee was willing to provide much 
needed funding to the Franklin Villa Housing Development in Sacramento. 
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA), which serves 
the interests of both the City and the County of Sacramento, has 
identified Franklin Villa as one of the most pressing priorities for 
the region. Once a senior center, the units in Franklin Villa became 
privately held, most by absent organizations, national non-profit 
entities, local government representatives, and private sector 
companies such as Freddie Mac. SHRA also is working closely with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development on issuers relating to the 
revitalization plan, including current efforts aimed at concluding a 
joint agreement on the management of HUD-owned units. With a full-scale 
revitalization plan developed, and with work continuing at the local 
and national levels to move the plan forward, the primary obstacle that 
remains is the availability of sufficient funding.
  Existing housing programs from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development such as the HOME Program and the HOPE VI Program cannot be 
brought to bear on the Franklin Villa project because these important 
programs only target public housing, not privately-held housing. 
Therefore, federal seed funding for the Franklin Villa project, absent 
congressional direction, would not be available.
  Again, I remain grateful for the assistance given to these projects 
that are so vital to the needs of the Sacramento community. I commend 
the leadership of the committee and the commitment put forth by the 
conferees to address these important issues.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the VA/HUD Conference Report is a good bill 
for housing. Unlike the House-passed bill, the conference report 
addresses the twin goals of housing preservation and expanding 
affordable housing opportunities for the 5.3 million American families 
with worse case housing needs.
  The conference report funds 60,000 new Section 8 vouchers, the second 
year in a row that we have provided incremental vouchers. The bill 
keeps our promise with last year's public housing reform bill--
providing almost $700 million more for public housing than the bill 
passed by the House. And, it includes funding increases for critical 
housing programs like homeless prevention, elderly and disabled 
housing, housing for persons with AIDS, and fair housing enforcement.
  Equally important, the bill provides a comprehensive response to the 
Section 8 ``opt-out'' crisis, which threatens us with the loss of 
hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units. By building on HUD's 
mark-up-to-market initiative, announced earlier this year, we preserve 
the best portion of our affordable housing stock and fully protect all 
tenants who live in units we are unable to preserve. This is a 
carefully crafted approach, which targets scarce resources to preserve 
projects in tight rental markets and protect tenants most at risk, 
while giving HUD flexibility to preserve additional housing.
  The conference report is also a good bill for community development. 
Funding is provided for the APIC New Markets initiative, to leverage 
billions of dollars of private capital for under-served and 
economically depressed areas. However, since such funding is 
conditioned on enactment of authorizing legislation, I call on the 
House to hold hearings and act expeditiously on this legislation.
  The conference report also increases funding for CDBG, provides $70 
million for Enterprise Zones and Empowerment Communities, and restores 
cuts made in the House bill in the brownfields redevelopment program.
  Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to conferees for 
including a number of provisions from H.R. 1624, the ``Elderly Housing 
Quality Improvement Act,'' which I introduced earlier this year, along 
with Reps. Vento, Kanjorski, and a number of other members. Following 
is an explanation of the provisions from H.R. 1624 which are being 
included in the conference report.
  A major focus of H.R. 1624 is the capital repair and maintenance of 
our federally assisted elderly housing stock. As units built in the 
1970s and 1980s have aged, project sponsors, many of them non-profits, 
too often lack the resources for adequate repair and maintenance. There 
are four provisions in the conference report that are taken from H.R. 
1624 that give elderly affordable housing sponsors more resources and 
flexibility in this area.
  Section 532(b) of the conference report [Section 3(d) of H.R. 1624] 
helps non-federally-insured Section 236 projects by letting them keep 
their ``excess income,'' as insured projects are currently allowed to 
do. Excess income is rent that uninsured projects can collect, but must 
currently give back to the federal government. This change will help 
non-profits who lack access to capital, and will help preserve Section 
8 housing owned by for-profits.
  Section 522 of the conference report [Section 2 of HR 1624] 
authorizes a new capital grant program for capital repair of federally 
assisted elderly housing units. Funds are to be awarded on a 
competitive basis, based on the need for repairs, the financial need of 
the applicant, and the negative impact on tenants of any failure to 
make such repairs.
  Section 533 of the conference report [Section 3(b) of H.R. 1624] 
amends an existing grant program, created by the 1997 mark-to-market 
legislation, which authorizes HUD to make multi-year grants to 
federally insured affordable housing projects from funds recaptured 
when existing Section 236 projects prepay their loans and surrender 
their Interest Reduction Payment (IRP) subsidies. Section 533 of the 
conference report accelerates the availability of these multi-year 
grants to an upfront capital grant, so that sponsors may use the funds 
for much-needed capital repairs. This accelerated availability of funds 
is achieved at no cost to the government.
  Finally, while not included in the conference report, Section 3(a) of 
H.R. 1624 was incorporated into the managers report language for the 
conference report. The intent of Section 3(a) of H.R. 1624 is to 
facilitate the refinancing of high interest rate Section 202 elderly 
housing projects. The managers report language tracks this provision by 
directing HUD to guarantee that a Section 202 sponsor may keep at least 
50% of annual debt service savings from a refinancing--as long as such 
savings are used for the benefit of the tenants or for the benefit of 
the project.
  A second major focus of the bill is to make assisted living 
facilities more available and affordable to lower income elderly. 
Assisted living facilities provide meals, health care, and other 
services to frail senior citizens who need assistance with activities 
of daily living. Unfortunately, poorer seniors who can't afford 
assisted living facilities are often forced to move into nursing homes, 
with a lower quality of life, at a higher cost to the federal 
government.
  To address this affordability problem, Section 522 [Section 2 of H.R. 
1624] of the conference report also authorizes funds under the newly 
created capital grant program to be

[[Page H10059]]

used for the conversion of existing federally assisted elderly housing 
to assisted living facilities. I would note that the VA/HUD bill funds 
$50 million in fiscal year 2000 under this authorization for the 
conversion of Section 202 properties to assisted living facilities.
  Section 523 of the conference report [Section 5 of H.R. 1624] 
authorizes the use of Section 8 vouchers to pay the rental component of 
any assisted living facility. This would make 200,000 senior citizens 
currently receiving vouchers eligible to use such vouchers in assisted 
living facilities. This flexibility, designed to enhance the continuum 
of care, is accomplished at no cost to the federal government.
  A third major area of focus of H.R. 1624 is the promotion of the use 
of service coordinators, which help elderly and disabled tenants grain 
access to local community services, thereby preserving their 
independence. Section 4(a) of H.R. 1624 doubled funding for grants for 
service coordinators in federally assisted housing--by authorizing $50 
million in fiscal year 2000 for new and renewal grants. The conference 
report adopts this recommendation--by using this $50 million funding 
level.
  Cumulatively, the provisions in H.R. 1624 which are being enacted 
into law through Title V of the conference report help seniors age in 
place, preserve their independence and self-sufficiency, and provide 
affordable alternatives to nursing home care.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of the 
conference report on 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 conference 
committee for the important but difficult work they did under the 
current tight budget constraints.
  The conference committee undoubtedly 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 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 four points.
  First, this Member especially appreciates the $550,000 Community 
Development Block Grant appropriation for the development in Lincoln, 
Nebraska, of the North 27th Street Community Center by Cedars Youth 
Services, Inc., a leading social service provider in the City of 
Lincoln. These funds will be used to construct a community center on 
the corner of 27th and Holdrege Streets to serve as the focal point for 
a variety of services and support to strengthen and revitalize the 
surrounding neighborhood. Social services, such as Head Start preschool 
classes, as well as neighborhood-strengthening activities, such as 
preventive health care and recreational opportunities, will be provided 
at the North 27th Street Community Center.
  The site of this new community center in the Clinton School 
neighborhood contains the highest percentage of families living in 
poverty in Lincoln, has greater incidences of crime than most 
neighborhoods, and its local elementary school is experiencing an 
alarming dropout rate. The neighborhood has over 1,500 children living 
there, but no licensed child care center, no public library, no 
swimming pools, and no health care facilities. As a result of these 
deficiencies, the North 27th Street Community Center's primary focus 
would be children.
  Second, this Member is very pleased that H.R. 2684 contains the 
largest appropriation ever, $19,386,700,000, to fund veterans health 
programs. Veterans fought to protect our freedom and way of life. As 
they served our nation in a time of need, the Federal Government must 
remember them in their time of need. The people of the U.S. owe our 
veterans a great deal and should keep the promises made to them.
  Third, 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 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.
  Fourth, this Member is pleased that the conference report restores 
funding for Americorps at the FY99 level.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the conference report on H.R. 2684.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2684, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 is the most critical funding 
bill for American science.
  All scientific endeavors we marvel at today started with intensive 
basic research. Today's basic research is the seedcorn for our future 
economic endeavors and basic research has provided the scientific 
foundation for all the significant discoveries we have made in 
medicine, telecommunications and manufacturing. This conference report 
recommends a level of $3.912 billion for NSF and will provide a $240 
million boost to NSF activities over the FY 1999 enacted level. 
Included in this amount is $2.996 billion for the Research and Related 
Activities account. This is nearly $200 million or 7% over the FY99 
level and will support crucial research activities at NSF.
  Key among these activities is the support for basic research in 
Information Technology (IT). The conferees have increased funding for 
IT by over $126 million from last year's level, more than was 
apportioned in either the House or Senate FY 2000 bills. Included in 
this amount is $36 million for Terascale computing. These large 
increases are in keeping with the legislative intent set out in H.R. 
2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development Act (NITRD) of 1999.
  H.R. 2086 charts a new course for IT research at the federal level. 
The Committee on Science passed the bill by a vote of 41-0. I expect 
the bill will be taken up by the full House prior to our recess. The 
bill has been endorsed by the co-chairs of the President's Information 
Technology Advisory Commission (PITAC) as well as numerous other 
university and industry groups that recognize the need for long-term 
support of IT research. I thank the conferees for appropriating 
sufficient funds for NITRD and making the programs authorized in H.R. 
2086 a reality. This investment in IT research will pay large dividends 
for future generations of Americans.
  NSF is not the only agency that falls under the purview of IT 
research in this funding bill. National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are 
both funded at levels consistent with H.R. 2086. Both of these agencies 
have important roles to play in furthering basic IT research.
  Also included in this bill is a provision to rename the United 
States-Mexico Foundation for Science in commemoration of the Science 
Committee's former Chairman and Ranking Member, George E. Brown. George 
was dedicated to improving scientific collaboration between the United 
States and Mexico. The George E. Brown/United States-Mexico Foundation 
for science is a fitting tribute to a man known by his colleagues as 
``Mr. Science.''
  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is funded at an overall 
level of $7.592 billion. Within this amount, $645 million is devoted to 
EPA science and technology programs. This is adequate funding for EPA's 
science and technology needs.
  Under this conference agreement, NASA is funded at $13.653 billion. 
This amount is $75 million above the President's request and $12 
million below the FY1999 enacted level. Within this amount, the 
International Space Station is funded at $2.33 billion, $30 million 
more than FY 1999 and $152 million below the President's request. In 
the past, the cost growth associated with the Space Station program has 
resulted in cuts to critical science programs at NASA. The $2.33 
billion level should enable NASA to meet station obligations without 
robbing from critical science programs.
  Likewise, a recent NASA Inspector General's report raises serious 
questions over whether the Triana spacecraft represents the best use of 
NASA's limited research dollars. This bill requires a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences regarding the scientific merit of the 
Triana project before work can proceed. I can only hope that the 
Academy will look at the relative merit of funding Triana as it 
compares with other NASA programs such as Space Science. Unfortunately, 
it appears that the review will not focus on how the mission was 
originally selected, thus, leaving the NASA IG's questions unanswered. 
Certainly, the NASA resources committed to Triana would be better spent 
on science projects selected through a peer review process. Restoring 
funding to Space Science, which has made such strides in performing 
NASA missions ``faster, cheaper, and better'' would be a better use of 
limited resources.
  Unfortunately, despite the strong commitment to science incorporated 
within this bill, NASA's decision to end-run the joint efforts by House 
and Senate authorizers by insisting on

[[Page H10060]]

the inclusion of a damaging legislative rider requires my opposition to 
this bill. NASA's legislative rider threatens the future of space 
commercialization and was slipped into this otherwise scientifically 
sound bill without a single hearing or any public debate. This new 
commercial development program puts NASA in the untenable position of 
weighing business risks, market potential, and an individual venture's 
probability of success. NASA, as a federal agency, is not competent to 
make these decisions, which are best left to private markets. The 
Science Committee has been working with NASA and the private sector to 
address the area of space commercialization. Yet NASA decided to skirt 
public debate and secure its own preeminence in an area outside of its 
capabilities. This demonstrates a callousness and arrogance that I 
cannot support or condone. As a long-time supporter of NASA, I'm deeply 
disappointed the agency would choose to intentionally circumvent the 
Science Committee, its strongest congressional advocate.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that I support the increased 
funding levels for science in this measure, I cannot support this 
conference report.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406, 
nays 18, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 500]

                               YEAS--406

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

                                NAYS--18

     Boswell
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Crane
     Evans
     Filner
     Hefley
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     McInnis
     Paul
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Carson
     Conyers
     Green (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Kingston
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1223

  Mr. McINTOSH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 500, I was 
on the floor, inserted my voting card, but for some unexplained reason 
my vote was not recorded. I meant to have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________