[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 77 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4613-H4641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635.
{time} 1610
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4635) 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, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of
Representatives the bill, H.R. 4635, making fiscal year 2001
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and
Urban Development and independent agencies. So that we can move
quickly, I will keep my comments brief.
First, let me just thank the distinguished gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his advice and counsel throughout this
discussion. Even though we have different political persuasions, I
think we share almost all of the same priorities in this bill, which
makes it, as one might imagine, much less difficult to bring a bill to
the floor.
We do not agree on everything obviously, but I think in most cases we
do. So we have enjoyed the benefit of his advice and the staffs have
worked very closely together. The subcommittee and the full committee
worked very hard to bring this bill out.
Like most of the appropriations subcommittees, we were given a very
tight 302(b) allocation. Nevertheless, we were able to make what I
think are good policy and funding choices to produce a good, fair bill
that deserves support.
Here are some of the highlights: this bill fully funds veterans
medical care
[[Page H4614]]
with a $1.355 billion increase over last year's record level. Last
year, we increased it $1.7 billion, $1.355 billion this year for a
total of over $3 billion increase in 2 years. I think that shows how
important this subcommittee, this full committee, and the House take
our commitments to our veterans. It provides full funding for medical
research, major construction, and cemetery administration operations.
Just as important, we have begun an effort to conduct better
oversight of how much medical care funding goes for medical care, per
se, and how much goes to maintaining buildings and facilities. All
veterans, no matter where they are located, deserve the best facilities
that we can offer.
We have also included language to make sure that veterans medical
receipts stay within the VA system and do not go to the Treasury as was
suggested by the Administration.
Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are fully funded, and we have
included language to push the Department to do a better, faster job of
getting funds out of Washington to the people who need them most. HUD's
record in this regard is not one to be proud of. We had 247,000 section
8 vouchers go begging last year because HUD did not get the job done.
So we have accounted for that and still have fully funded the section 8
requirements.
We have essentially level funded the Community Development Block
Grant entitlement programs, trimming them by less than 1 percent. We
have level funded or only slightly reduced most other HUD programs,
making sure that HUD was not using the bank to pay for other programs
as it did last year.
AmeriCorps has been zeroed out. I am sure that will be a topic for
discussion in conference and in consultation with the White House. In
this bill, there is no funding.
EPA's operating programs have been level funded while various State
grant programs, which assist the States in implementing Federal laws,
have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
program, gutted in the President's budget request, has been restored to
$1.2 billion. That is real commitment on the part of Congress to
support cleaner water and to improve the environment of this country,
an area where I think the Administration is sorely lacking, while State
and local air grants from section 319 non-point source pollution grants
have been increased significantly.
Perhaps most important, we have proposed $245 million, more than
double last year's level and $85 million more than the Administration's
request, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer
the States the maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL
issues facing the States.
To help the States deal with the MTBE problems caused by leaking
underground storage tank facilities, that is a gasoline additive that
has recently been banned by the EPA, we have upped the account at EPA
by $9 million over last year and $7 million over the budget request.
CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been proposed for an
increase over last year's funding level. They are doing a good job.
They deserve our support; we provided it.
{time} 1615
Likewise, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, perhaps the most
productive and most efficient Federal organization dealing with
housing, has been provided their full funding level of $90 million.
Again, they have earned and deserve our support. We should reward
positive performance.
The National Science Foundation has received an increase of $167
million over last year's level, putting them over $4 billion, their
largest funding level ever.
Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of $113 million,
their first increase in several years.
Mr. Chairman, there is one point regarding this bill that really
needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we faced a tight
allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that this bill
received an allocation that is nearly $5 billion above last year. I
would like to try to set the record straight. The reality is that our
new allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is
that CBO's freeze level for this budget was $76.9 billion. We have,
therefore, a net increase of just $1.1 billion over last year.
I hasten to add that that increase has been totally absorbed by VA
medical care, $1.355 billion over last year, a Section 8 housing
increase of nearly $2 billion, and increases provided for National
Science Foundation and NASA over last year's level. Nearly every other
program in this bill was either level funded or reduced slightly so
that we could meet these necessary increases and still stay within our
allocation.
I have to say that it would be very difficult to get this bill this
far without the support and assistance of my ranking member, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the rest of this hard-
working subcommittee and our staffs, and we have wonderful staffs.
While we do not always agree on every issue, every effort has been made
on both sides to continue the subcommittee's strong history of
bipartisan cooperation in the crafting of this bill. I truly appreciate
the gentleman's help and close working relationship.
Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and
Independent Agencies bill. It is a good fair bill, with solid policy
direction, while staying completely within our budget authority and
outlay allocations. I strongly encourage the support of this body in
moving this measure forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin
by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their
courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process.
Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I
applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt.
The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for
veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for
providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8
housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill,
the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities.
We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his
listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because
of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill
reflects, missed a lot of opportunities.
Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by
young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out
totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential
veto.
Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic
research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508
million less than that requested by the President for the National
Science Foundation.
Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and
technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill
abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of
reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and
reduce the cost of access to space.
Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable
housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing
assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development
Block Grants and public housing below the current year level.
And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration
calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes,
floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9
billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to
respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters.
The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or
less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which
this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the
chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more
resources for medical
[[Page H4615]]
research at the Veterans Administration or for construction of State-
needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why are we not doing more
to expand the supply of affordable housing and helping our Nation's
homeless? Why are we not doing more for environmental restoration and
protection? And why are we not doing more to explore space and perform
the basic scientific research that is directly responsible for our
current economic boom?
We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps
growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus
to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided,
instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at
upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong
last year, and it is wrong now.
Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The
appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low
allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they
reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however,
we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the
question of why we go through this exercise at all.
I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York
has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However,
I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do.
This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed
opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and
sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this
country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer
infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of
modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure
our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes
on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at
a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when
will we?
During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered
several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas.
Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor
thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and
tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation.
No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I
believe that this process should move forward. It is also important
that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to
meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant
area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has
been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great
needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources
before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members.
The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect
to see something markedly different than what we have before us today.
I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I
hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect
the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means
to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less
fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in
research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion
in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can
support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our
subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I
also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to
maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious
housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall
within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and
NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among a number of Federal
agencies under our committee's jurisdiction.
Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so
many national and regional priorities within a limited budget
allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds,
$4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in
fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year.
That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads
above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with
over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last
year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8
renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is
section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for
individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies,
homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS, known as HOPA.
This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of
housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this
committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark
some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable
housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed
with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities
set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's
long overdue request for this purpose.
Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75
percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on
new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing
available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to
emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the
administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill
insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing
units.
The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the
administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the
clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over
the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this
remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air
grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all
increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases.
{time} 1630
The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for
the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year.
Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous
materials in many waste sites around the country that have been
abandoned.
As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having
more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional
district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to
emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of
costly, protracted lawsuits.
The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious
problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the
use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE.
During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I
raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive.
While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet
Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had
begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country.
California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500,
New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected
adversely.
As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took
steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill
[[Page H4616]]
builds upon that decision by providing $9 million for efforts to
correct leaking underground storage tank problems associated with this
additive.
Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and
Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the
National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this
year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of
$167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year.
It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4-
billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This
agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of
national science and engineering in every State and institution of
higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its
worth in economic growth.
I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of
the committee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a debate or part of the debate
about our national priorities and our national values and it helps
decide who we are going to put first in this society.
This Congress has committed itself to pass a large number of very
large tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts are aimed at the most well-
off people in our society. The wealthiest 2 percent will get a huge
percentage of those tax cuts. And our ability to afford those tax cuts
is based on the assumption by the majority that over the next few years
we will cut $125 billion below current services, below existing
purchasing power levels, a whole host of programs: education programs,
health programs, housing programs, land acquisition programs, science
programs, all the rest.
That is really what this debate is all about. Because this is one of
the appropriation bills that is cut by a large amount below the
President's budget in order to pretend that we can squeeze out enough
room for those huge tax cuts aimed at the most well-off people in this
society. And I do not believe we ought to do that.
I think we need to look at this budget in terms of what we need 10
years from now because this is a growing society, it is a growing
population. We have growing needs, we are going to have more people who
need housing, we are going to have more people in high schools, we are
going to have more people in college, we are going to have more needs,
and these bills are not responding to them.
Some examples of that lack of response are as follows: As has been
indicated, the distinguished chairman has done the best he can given
the budget ceiling which was assigned to his subcommittee and this bill
does contain a welcome $1.35 billion increase for veterans' medical
care. It is about time that both parties get off their duff on that.
But it fails to adequately provide for several other priorities for
veterans.
It does freeze funds for veterans' medical and prosthetic research.
It cuts grants for construction of State veterans homes one-third below
current year levels and does some other things that we are not happy
about. It needlessly creates a political confrontation with the
President by terminating the Corporation for National and Community
Service, including the AmeriCorps program. Everyone on this floor knows
the President is not going to sign this bill with that provision.
For housing, it appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing
assistance vouchers proposed by the administration. It cuts Community
Development Block Grants $276 million below the current year level and
$395 million below the President's request. It freezes funding for
homeless assistance. It provides a number of other cuts on the
environmental front and on the NASA front.
I happen to believe the most serious cut of all in terms of our long-
term economic health is what this bill does to the National Science
Foundation because it falls short of the President's request by $508
billion. And I think it is essential to understand that the National
Science Foundation does much of the basic scientific research, upon
which all our other technological and medical progress is based.
We have had economists estimate that at least half of our economic
productivity in the past 50 years can be attributed to technological
innovation and the science that has supported that innovation. And yet,
this bill is a giant missed opportunity because it cuts the President's
budget with respect to that program.
It falls $508 million below the President's request. And then, in
addition, it takes actions which, in concert with other actions taken
by other subcommittees, slowly but surely fences in the Justice
Department so that neither they nor any other agency of Government can
mount an effective lawsuit against the tobacco companies for lying
through their teeth to the American people for the past 40 years about
whether or not their product caused cancer. And so, the Government has
shelled out billions of dollars in Medicare, in veterans' health costs
to deal with health consequences of that product and the lying selling
of that product to the American people. And I think that needs to be
corrected.
So these are a number of reasons why, although I have profound
respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and consider him to
be one of the finest people in this institution, I cannot support the
work product that the budget resolution has forced him to come up with.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for
yielding on my behalf, and I rise in strong support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman
Walsh) for all the great effort and the great work that he has done as
chairman of this subcommittee. I want to thank, also, the ranking
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has teamed
up with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to make this thing
work.
I want to further thank the staff, led by Frank Cushing, for all the
great efforts that they have made on this legislation. It is not easy,
and I know that; and most people do not know how much time staff puts
into the effort that brings forth a bill.
This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of
diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA.
And there is a lot of distance in between. It is not an easy task to
bring this wide range of interest into a single bill. However, the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have a working relationship
that I think makes this all possible.
H.R. 4635 is a good bill and keeps us within the budget resolution. I
would point out that the product before us contains, as undoubtedly has
been commented on, no Member earmarks. In this respect, it is eminently
fair because there are no winners or losers.
The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation
produced under very difficult circumstances and is within, again, the
budget resolution. It responsibly provides a $1.3-billion increase for
veterans' medical health care, fully funds section 8 housing, and
provides sound investments in research-intensive agencies, such as NASA
and, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) just
mentioned, the National Science Foundation.
As this process moves forward, there will be plenty of opportunities
for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the
President finally signs the bill. I would implore my colleagues not to
let perfection be the enemy of good. This is a good and responsible
bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it.
Again, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted
for crafting this piece of legislation under these circumstances. He
has worked in good faith with the ranking member on the other side in a
bipartisan spirit to form a bill that the House has now before it.
My colleagues, this is a fair bill and there will be time to
strengthen it further as the process moves along. So I urge its
support.
[[Page H4617]]
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I speak today on one part of the bill before us, title
I, the bill funding the Department of Administration, and I speak as
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs in this House.
Now, all of us on this side of the aisle have spoken of our deep
respect for the chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but we
also have taken issue with the sense that we are doing all we can do in
this bill, in this case for our Nation's veterans.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks in a passive sense that
we have been allocated a number. This is an active decision by this
House to allocate certain figures, and this House can do what it will
with regard to the budget.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, we have
spoken about our priorities. This budget ranks veterans' affairs, I am
afraid, very low in the priorities.
The chair said that this is fully funded, medical care for our
veterans is fully funded. I am not sure what that means, but I would
challenge my colleagues to go to any town hall meeting of veterans in
this Nation and tell them that their benefits and their health care is
fully funded.
The gentleman from Michigan said this is a good and responsible
budget. I take issue. It is not a good budget. It is an irresponsible
budget. We are reneging on our commitment to our Nation's veterans, Mr.
Speaker. We have asked our veterans to sacrifice in war. When we had
deficits, we asked our veterans to take cuts because we had to share
the sacrifice of cutting those deficits. But now that we have
surpluses, it is time to make up on those commitments and start
fulfilling those commitments.
Many of our national cemeteries are a national disgrace. The waiting
list for our veterans to see medical specialists goes months and months
and months to get adjudication. Their benefits claims may take years.
This is not a good and responsible budget. We are falling behind, Mr.
Speaker, on medical research for veterans. We are falling behind on our
commitment to fund our State veterans' homes. We are falling behind on
helping our homeless veterans. We are falling behind on providing
educational benefits to those veterans.
{time} 1645
The Montgomery GI bill is almost worthless in terms of its spending
power in today's market.
I am going to submit amendments, Mr. Chairman, to cover some of these
shortcomings, but I want to speak on a couple now. We are not
adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who
served in the Gulf War and who now suffer from various diagnosed and
undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years, Mr. Chairman,
since the men and women of our Armed Forces were sent to the gulf, yet
they do not know what caused their illness, and we have no treatment
for it. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and appropriate
research. This budget does virtually nothing for those veterans.
I speak today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Independent Budget, a
budget that was propounded by a coalition of all the veterans
organizations in this Nation. It is a responsible, professional budget.
They show that this budget falls behind on our commitment by a minimum
of $1.5 billion. It points out that as our veteran population ages, the
need for long-term care increases. One means of providing that is
through our funding of State veterans homes. In fact, a new home just
opened in my congressional district; and already there is a waiting
list of hundreds and hundreds. Other areas should have the same
opportunity as the veterans in my San Diego region with the opening of
this new home. Yet this budget has a decrease in funding for State
homes.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's veterans require an educational benefit
that will actually allow them to attend college. I will propose such an
amendment when the time comes. We have fallen behind on trying to deal
with our homeless veterans. Thirty to 40 percent of those on the street
are veterans. This is no way to treat those who served for us. We
should increase that. This budget does not.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of people in this Nation who
served during World War II and were drafted into Armed Forces, Filipino
veterans who helped us win the war in the Pacific. They are in their
70s and 80s. We need to provide them the health care that was taken
away by this Congress more than 50 years ago. $30 million is all that
is required to provide this health care. I will submit an amendment to
do just that.
Mr. Chairman, we are falling farther and farther behind with this
budget. It is time to reverse our priorities. It is time to recognize
the heroism and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Let us truly fully
fund this budget. Let us truly make this a good and responsible budget.
Let us do better for our Nation's veterans.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to discuss some of the issues that were just raised.
I will be brief. I am not going to fight every battle and counter
every argument, but I do think it needs to be said that we are not
falling behind. We are not falling behind in our commitments to our
veterans. In fact, the strides that this Congress has made in the last
2 years, $1.7 billion last year, almost $1.4 billion this year, that is
over a $3 billion commitment in a $20 billion health care allocation.
That is a profound commitment to our veterans. I do not believe any
Congress in the recent or distant past has made that sort of
commitment. I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we
are falling behind. If anything, we are quickly catching up if not
pulling ahead. But to say we are falling behind, I think, gives grist
for the mill for those uninformed people out there who are saying we
are not keeping our commitments to the veteran. I strongly disagree.
On the issue of the G.I. Bill, those benefits are mandatory. The
gentleman sits on the committee of authorization. That is where that
issue belongs, not here in the committee on appropriations. Those are
mandatory benefits, not within our purview to determine allocation of
funds. It is mandatory.
Lastly, the GAO study says that the Veterans Administration is
wasting $1 million a day through poor administration. That is over $300
million a year wasted. We cannot afford to have that waste continue.
Clearly, the Congress can do better; but the administration can, too.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has
done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can
to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want
to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the
Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a
time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are
higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in
the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important
veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking.
Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very
partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that
each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very
important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served
this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to
be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in
our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the
drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and
saved this
[[Page H4618]]
country from various battles across the history of our country. But it
is not funded properly.
In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will
we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with
shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in
our country who have served this country well.
I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in
America, the least of these who find themselves living in public
housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public
housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a
time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now
falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7
billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to
today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met.
The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district,
and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the
previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We
are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing
the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have
applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime,
free from other kinds of negative things in our budget.
I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has
done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is
really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets.
There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our
responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In
public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress.
I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through
conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is
going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have
to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and
this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening,
let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak
out for them.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first
appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) because I think they
probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I
still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs,
this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President
proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation
this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an
agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nation's
capabilities in science and engineering research and education.
The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million.
This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the
House. It also ignores the well-known connection between research and
economic development. I characterize the bill as shortsighted because
it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science
and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the well-
being of our citizens. Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic
productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the
science that has supported it. The social rate of return for basic
research performed at academic institutions has been found to be at
least 28 percent.
Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns
to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent
example of the Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science
Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such
research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic
increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The
most important is also the least quantifiable, that is, the lost
opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued.
Last year alone, the National Science Foundation could not fund 3,800
proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer
reviewers. The budget increase requested for fiscal year 2001 has
greatly reduced the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to
rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in
the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposal was
designated for the core research programs of the foundation. This new
funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as
increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative
value of National Science Foundation awards, thereby adding to the
overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is,
researchers must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding
for their research projects.
If NSF were to be allowed to reach its goal of increasing average
grant size to $108,000 and grant duration to 3 years, it estimates the
savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50
million. Of course, this is only a portion of the potential savings
since it does not include reductions in the time for proposal reviews
and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few
grants.
Overall, the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will
result in more than 4,000 fewer awards for state-of-the-art research
and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in
exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as information
technology, the nanoscale science and engineering, and environmental
research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries
with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society.
The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18,000 fewer
researchers, educators, and students receiving NSF support. This is a
direct, and negative, effect on the shortages projected in the high-
tech workforce. It will reduce the number of well-trained scientists
and engineers needed for the Nation's future.
Finally, I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the
funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many
Members of this House in the development and widespread use of
information technology.
In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill
authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among seven agencies for
information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multi-
agency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources.
H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSF's part of this initiative by over
$154 million, or by more than 20 percent.
The need for the major new investment in information technology
research was advocated by the President's Information Technology
Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: ``Unless immediate
steps are taken to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area,
we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of
economic progress over the coming decades.''
I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for the research that will
lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials,
environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent
industries.
The economic growth that has been fueled by advances in basic
research will be endangered because of the failure of this bill to
provide adequate resources for the math, science, and engineering
research and education activities of the National Science Foundation.
This is shameful and irresponsible.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have
increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may
point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of
this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along,
that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have
done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this
Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care
in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike
the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from
third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget
within the VA
[[Page H4619]]
system. The President's budget proposed that the first $350 million
collected as a result of changes under the Veterans Millennium Health
Care Act signed into law and passed last year be returned to the
Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration.
{time} 1700
This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the
VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a
responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the
growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the
liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver
failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number
of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with
the Vietnam-Era part of our history.
In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for
testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under
discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However,
during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo
West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal
year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand
was not there.
Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary
statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known
information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the
VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in
March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that
tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent
of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey,
the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the
national average.
The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases
money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and
this is a budget that points us in the right direction.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our
priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation
to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect,
$200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this
House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless,
the judgment of this House.
In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to
strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation
against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a
judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion
to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct
of that industry.
Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill
and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a couple of weeks we will
have given $200 billion to 400 families by eliminating the estate tax,
and we will refuse to bring in potentially $300 billion that can be
used for veterans' health, Indian health services, prescription drug
benefits for the elderly, so many things where we are always saying we
do not have the money to fund it.
The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our
colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no
misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that
would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for
management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation
against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times
over that amount back to the veterans' health program.
Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health
program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate
fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the
veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued.
They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to
meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit
support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War
Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the
groups want this lawsuit to go forward.
Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the
support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at
all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this
country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of
tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and
the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke.
They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead
them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they
manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking.
I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments,
that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that
rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be
used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to
the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will
hear more about it later.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 30
seconds remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the
right to close.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, many requests that
would be more than 30 seconds; and, therefore, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need
for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one
of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take
money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD.
Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can
find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this
country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our
competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic
Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase
in NSF funding.
Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let
us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let
us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic
research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital
to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments to make. I think
we can conclude our general debate and move into amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record.
[[Page H4620]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.001
[[Page H4621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.002
[[Page H4622]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.003
[[Page H4623]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.004
[[Page H4624]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.005
[[Page H4625]]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider
H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to
highlight several features of this legislation that are important to
our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's
reformulated gasoline mandate.
national science foundation
Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the
requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17,
2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not
authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together
with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R.
2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to
about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level.
While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million,
NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would
have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level
requested, especially given the large increases planned for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Indeed, I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the
intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical
research be more widely recognized. Today, we are in the midst of one
of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes
much to technological changes driven by the basic scientific research
conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which
provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research
supported by NSF.
Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their
underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators
under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just
one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing
revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and
computational sciences as the biological sciences.
I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think
we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the
other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in
ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining
diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science
Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important
that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of
scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular
area or areas relative to other.''
If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area,
I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short
shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future
economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs.
national aeronautics and space administration
While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch
Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714
billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year.
I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee
leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy
initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of
space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying
committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund
the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use
of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to
withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until
some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully
answered.
As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered
some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its
implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe
NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and
builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency
oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of
risk.
Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics
activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its
limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the
jurisdiction of other federal agencies.
The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to
move our space program to the next level of achievement. The
Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first
instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to
a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a
cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate
safeguards to protect the federal investment.
I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to
try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference
Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that
goal because I believe the program is important.
EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate
Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone
levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At
the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had
concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost,
potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage.
Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel,
have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon
Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it
has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water
contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded
that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any
impact on improving air quality.
Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas
prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new
requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear
correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the
RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has
refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected
opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has
refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite
repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers,
and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant
a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price
gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be
lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near.
EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal
to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is
troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions
on this issue.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations
bill. H.R. 4635, which we are considering today is woefully inadequate
and fails to address America's needs in housing, economic development,
veterans, and science and technology programs. This is particularly
distressing in these times of unprecedented prosperity and rising
surpluses.
Among many unacceptable funding provisions, the bill freezes funding
for veterans medical research, cuts grants for construction of state
veterans homes $30 million below the current year level, and provides
$56 million less than requested to improve processing of applications
for benefits.
The bill appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance
vouchers proposed by the Administration. Further, it cuts the Community
Development Block Grant by $275 million below the current year level.
And while it provides an increase for research at the National
Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's requested
increased by $508 million. The bill also fails to adequately provide
for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science and
Technology programs, which the bill underfunds by $323 million. These
cuts I believe would jeopardize the future of our space research
programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on
earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our
universe.
Even more distressing, the bill only appropriates $300 million of the
$2.9 billion requested by the Administration for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund, thereby jeopardizing FEMA's
ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters.
Finally, the bill once again seeks to completely eliminate the
AmeriCorps National Service program. As a result a great number of
important projects that foster involvement and learning in technology
by children and adults and programs that bring technology to
underserved populations and address weaknesses in our economy, will go
unfunded. One of these is Project FIRST (Fostering Instructional Reform
Through Service and Technology Initiatives), whose role it is to
increase access to technology and its educational benefits in the
nation's least-served schools. Another way AmeriCorps is involved with
technology is through TechCorps, a national non-profit organization
that is driven and staffed primarily with technologically proficient
volunteers. However, these cuts ensure that TechCorps will not receive
AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers to bring this program to underserved, low-
income communities.
[[Page H4626]]
Mr. Chairman, I believe the cuts in this bill would move America in
the wrong direction. Despite our unprecedented economic prosperity,
there are significant unmet needs in our nation's communities and in
our science and research programs. This bill is part of the majority's
strategy of financing tax cuts targeted to the well off by cutting
domestic spending. We should not be placing the burden of our
prosperity on the backs of the people who will suffer most from cutting
programs that meet vital housing, economic development, emergency, and
research needs.
I will strongly oppose this bill because it fails to meet our
responsibilities to war veterans, to provide relief and recovery after
natural disasters, to provide service to the community, to protect the
environment, to help meet housing needs, and to undertake the essential
research and development that is fueling the magnificent growth
achieved by the American economy and enjoyed by the American public in
the last eight years.
We can do better, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the
Committee's bill includes $10 million to help bridge the Digital Divide
in Indian Country. This funding will encourage Native Americans to
pursue degrees in information technology and other science and
technology fields and will build the capacity of tribally controlled
community colleges--and their K-12 feeder schools--to offer high-
quality science and technology classes.
According to the National Telecommunications Information
Administration (NTIA), poor rural Native Americans are being left
behind when it comes to even the most basic telecommunications
services. According to one NITA study, 76% of rural households with
incomes of less than $5,000 have phones, but only 46% of individuals at
the same income level on tribal lands have a telephone connection.
Oklahoma is home to 37 federally-recognized tribal nations and to
more than 254,000 tribal members. The Cherokee Nation, located in
Tahlequah, is the second largest tribe in the United States with
207,790 members.
That is why I appreciate funding of the $10 million tribal college
technology program in the FY 2001 National Science Foundation budget.
At this point, it is uncertain whether the Senate will also fund this
critical initiative. I hope Congress will work to preserve funding for
this important program as the FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill moves
forward so that Native Americans in Oklahoma and across America can get
the education and training at tribally-controlled community colleges
they need to compete and succeed in the New Economy.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4635, the FY
2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill. I want to express my concern that the
bill provides zero increases for the HUD Indian housing programs. The
budget provides $693 million for FY 2001, which is the same amount as
the FY 2000 enacted level, and it does not provide any funding for any
of the new initiatives proposed by the administration.
The President requested $730 million for Indian housing programs, and
the budget we are considering today slashes the President's request by
$37 million.
Mr. Chairman, Native Americans continued to have the poorest housing
in this country.
The National American Indian Housing Council's fact sheet on Indian
housing reveals that--
the poverty rate for rural Native Americans is 37 percent, a rate
that is higher than any other racial/ethnic group,
69 percent of Native Americans in tribal areas live in overcrowded
homes,
21 percent of homes in tribal areas are overcrowded as compared with
the national average of 2.7 percent, and
16.5 percent of Native American households in tribal areas are
without complete plumbing.
With that kind of data supporting the need for more Federal funding
for Indian housing, we should not support a bill that provides zero
funding for the people that need the funding most. I urge my colleagues
to oppose the FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, despite the efforts of my
Chairman, who did the level best he could with the subcommittee funding
allocation that was given to him, there are numerous funding problems
in this bill.
But I rise to express my concerns in particular about the lack of
funding to help the poorest of the poor obtain decent housing.
We are living in the period of the greatest economic prosperity in
our nation's history.
But even this economic boom has created a housing crisis for many
Americans.
In its State of the Cities Report, HUD reported that serious housing
problems are increasing at almost twice the rate of population growth.
These are the people who pay more than a quarter of their incomes for
housing, and the people who have no choice but to live in unsafe or
substandard housing.
There are over 5 million families who pay more than 50%--half their
income--on housing. This number is the highest in the nation's history,
and unfortunately, the number continues to grow.
Worst-case housing needs have been three times as high for families
with full-time wage earners than for other families, and particularly
high for minority families.
Housing rental assistance is an important solution to the housing
affordability problem. HUD's incremental vouchers help families to find
homes--families that are currently homeless, living in substandard
housing or paying more than half of their income in rent.
Vouchers work: the average waiting period for a Section 8 voucher is
about two years. In virtually every urban area anywhere in the country,
people making the minimum wage cannot afford even a medium priced
apartment rental. Housing vouchers make that possible, and they do it
using private sector housing.
Yet the bill does not fund the President's request for 120,000
additional incremental housing vouchers. In fact, despite its claims,
it is debatable whether or not this bill will provide HUD with any new
vouchers to help our families find safe, decent and affordable housing.
The bill as written claims to allow HUD to provide up to 20,000
additional vouchers.
But this is just ``funny math,'' or ``creative accounting'' because
these additional vouchers are only funded in the bill through overly
rosey and optimistic estimates of recaptures of unused Section 8 funds.
HUD will only have these vouchers available if the Department
recaptures more funds than the amount that HUD itself says can be
recaptured.
HUD does not even expect these recaptured funds to be available.
We would never treat rich people this way; you can bet they get hard
cash to meet their needs. Yet poor families are shunted aside with a
promise that may not even pan out.
Refusing to provide additional incremental vouchers means that
families will have to continue to live in substandard housing or pay
excessive portions of family income toward rent.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that HUD needs to spend the funds it has
recaptured. I understand that HUD has recaptured all the funding it
legally can and is taking additional steps to increase voucher
utilization. For example:
HUD is instituting a Section 8 management assessment program to
identify poor performers.
The Department is providing for the transfer of unused funds to a
public housing agency that can use them right away.
HUD has also proposed the use of a voucher success fund in rental
markets where public funding agencies are not fully using available
funds.
Denying incremental vouchers denies families opportunities for safe,
decent housing and affordable housing.
What this bill does is punish the majority of public housing
authorities--that are providing critical assistance to families and
need more vouchers--because a few public housing agencies have
performed poorly.
If funding for the President's proposed additional 120,000
incremental vouchers is not provided, there is a very real danger that
this funding will never be made up in subsequent appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, the only way that this bill can be repaired is for the
House leadership to provide the additional needed funding.
It makes no sense to underfund such an important bill when the nation
is running record budget surpluses and the needs of the poor in this
country are unmet.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his
support for H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. First, this Member would like
to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from New York (Mr. Walsh), the
distinguished Ranking Member from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and all
members of the Subcommittee for the work they did under the tight
302(b) allocation.
This Member would like to focus his remarks on the following four
areas: Housing, Community Development Fun--Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), America's Private Investment Companies (APICs) and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) on repetitive loss.
housing
First, this Member would like to comment favorably upon the treatment
of the Section 8 and Section 202 programs, which were funded as
adequately as we can under the budgetary restraints. The Subcommittee
correctly recognizes the demographic shift to a more aging population
with the funding for Section 8 contract renewals.
In addition, this Member commends the $6 million appropriation for
the Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which
this Member created in consultation with a range of Indian Housing
specialists. This seems to be an excellent new
[[Page H4627]]
program which this Member says without appropriate modesty and
recognition of his colleagues support, is providing privately financed
homes through a government guarantee program for Indian families who
are otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust
status of Indian reservation land. The above appropriation supports
loan guarantees totaling $72 million which should assist an estimated
20,000 families.
Moreover, this Member would like to specifically comment the
Subcommittee for reducing duplicative efforts of the Federal Government
in rural housing and economic development. After a funding level of $25
million in fiscal year 2000 for rural housing and economic development
efforts in HUD, the Subcommittee appropriated $20 million for fiscal
year 2001 for HUD's rural housing and economic development efforts.
This Member would prefer that no money is appropriated for HUD for this
purpose.
In fact, this Member testified before the VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in opposition to HUD's duplicative
efforts in rural housing. As a long-term advocate of rural housing
during his tenure in the House, this Member believes that we need to be
careful of duplication in the efforts of the Federal Government in
rural housing and economic development. In the past, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) through their Rural Development
offices has successfully implemented numerous rural housing and
economic development programs. As a result, this Member disagrees with
HUD's efforts to duplicate USDA Rural Development staff.
community development fund (cdbg)
Second, this Member would like to emphasize a concern over the VA,
HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill which in large part
results from budgetary restraints. The Community Development Fund,
which includes the CDBG program, is provided $4.5 billion, which is
$295 million less than the fiscal year 2000 level. This reduction is of
deep concern to this Member. The CDBG program has been a model of
local-Federal partnership.
The CDBG program not only is valuable to the larger entitlement
cities, it gives assistance to those communities under 50,000 through
state administering agencies. It is a government program with minimal
overhead and bureaucracy. Moreover, CDBG has provided invaluable
dollars to cities and rural communities for such things as affordable
housing, public infrastructure, and economic development.
apics
Third, this Member does applaud the Subcommittee for providing no new
budget authority to HUD for the APIC program. APICs would be companies
which are licensed by the Department of Housing and Urban development
(HUD) pursuant to a national competition for venture capital firms.
Currently, HUD does not have the proper capability to administer APIC.
To illustrate this, the Inspector General has labeled HUD a ``troubled
agency.'' Rather than focusing on new initiatives like APIC, HUD should
focus on its existing projects.
nfip repetitive loss
Lastly, this Member supports the language included in the
appropriations measure which provides FEMA with up to $50 million to be
obligated for pre-disaster mitigation activities and repetitive loss
buyouts following disaster declarations. This Member believes that this
appropriation is just a first step in eliminating repetitive loss under
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by FEMA. In
fact, this Member has introduced a measure, H.R. 2728, Two-Floods-and-
You-are-Out-of-the-Taxpayer's-Pocket-Act, which authorizes FEMA to
offer buy-outs to repetitive loss properties and to increase the NFIP
rates to actuarial for those properties who refuse a publicly funded
mitigation offer.
Because of the necessity to fund important housing and community
development programs, this Member would encourage his colleagues to
support H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4635
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and
61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other
officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and
certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article
IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as
amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38
U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55,
and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat.
735; 76 Stat. 1198), $22,766,276,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,419,000 of
the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General
operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary
expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the
Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53,
and 55), the funding source for which is specifically
provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation:
Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an
actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to
``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding
of individual medical facilities for nursing home care
provided to pensioners as authorized.
readjustment benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61,
$1,664,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court
award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation
involving the vocational training program authorized by
section 18 of Public Law 98-77, as amended.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Filner:
Page 3, after line 21, insert the following:
In addition, for ``Readjustment Benefits'', $900,000,000
for enhanced educational assistance under chapter 30 of title
38, United States Code (the Montgomery GI Bill), in
accordance with the provisions of H.R. 4334 of the 106th
Congress as introduced on April 13, 2000: Provided, That the
Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985:
Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to
the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that
is included in an official budget request transmitted by the
President to the Congress and that is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for his courtesy in
hearing this amendment.
I have a series of amendments, Mr. Chairman, that speak to the former
statements or earlier statements of the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Walsh) to the notion that we are not falling behind, the
gentleman says, in our commitment to our Nation's veterans.
It is true that in the last 2 years we have upgraded our spending
over the previous year, but that was after a decade or more of flatline
budgets. We have not caught up. I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) to visit cemeteries around this country, which are
deteriorating. I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to sit for
months and months with our veterans who must wait for doctors'
appointments, who must wait for years to get their disability claims
adjudicated, who are trying to go to college; and that is the nature of
the amendment I have before us today.
[[Page H4628]]
Mr. Chairman, in 1981, the education benefit to our veterans which
allowed them to go to college was $493 a month. 20 years later, with
incredible soaring costs of education and associated expenses, we are
paying only $20 more per month.
I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is that not falling
behind? Here we have an amendment to catch up, to make sure that the
Montgomery GI bill named after our former Member and great chairman of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, that the goal of the Montgomery GI
bill, to provide meaningful readjustment benefits to discharged
Members, while also giving military recruiters an effective tool to
support the concept of an all volunteer force.
My amendment will allow us to meet these goals because today this
bill is not accomplishing any one of them. We are not providing a
benefit that will help our retention and recruitment. We are not
providing a readjustment benefit. We are not honoring the sacrifice of
our veterans.
My amendment would provide $900 million in additional funding for
enhanced educational assistance. This number, Mr. Chairman, is
important to explain how it was arrived at.
All the Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs applauded when
the so-called transition commission reported its findings to our
committee. That commission said that the Montgomery GI bill benefit
should provide for the full costs of college education and its
associated expenses for our veterans. Then we would have a recruiting
tool to help our Nation's armed forces. In fact, that notion was
embodied in H.R. 1071, the Evans-Dingell bill, which would pay for
those full costs, in addition to a stipend of $800 a month.
The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump), also introduced a bill, H.R. 1182, which would pay for 90
percent of those costs. When we realized that the budget could not
provide for that in the short run, a coalition across this Nation of
veterans' organizations and higher educational institutions came
together and came up with a compromise to say, let us at least provide
at the beginning for the average costs of attending a 4-year public
school college as a commuter student. That number would come to $975 a
month this year for full-time study.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) introduced that bill as
H.R. 4334. It has the full backing of veterans' organizations, as I
said, all across this Nation, and in accord with that H.R. 4334 would
provide all veterans and service members with an opportunity to get a
good college education while taking into account the realistic costs of
college today.
Let us not forget that it is largely thanks to our veterans that the
rest of us are able to be safe and sound at home enjoying this
prosperity. We ought to have the opportunity to give them the
opportunity to continue their education.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to accept this amendment. The
committee would not put this before our Members for a vote following
the tradition of many parts of this bill, which have items that are not
authorized. I would ask for this committee now to accept this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the statements of various
groups across this Nation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the
AMVETS, the Noncommissioned Officers Association, the Blinded Veterans
of America, in support of this amendment. They all have weighed in, and
I include that in the Record.
Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United
States of America,
Alexandria, VA, June 16, 2000.
Hon. Bob Filner,
Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Filner: The Non Commissioned Officers Association
of the USA (NCOA) is writing to state its strong, wholeheared
support for your amendment to H.R. 4635, the Fiscal Year 2001
VA-HUD Appropriations Act, that would provide enhanced
readjustment educational assistance under the Montgomery GI
Bill. Although the House of Representatives recently approved
a modest increase to the basic monthly stipend, even when
fully implemented the increase approved will still only
equate to about 60% of the cost of attending a public four-
year college.
The military services are in the throes of a recruiting and
retention crisis that is nearing emergency proportion.
Recruiting is at its lowest since the all-volunteer force
began, even though enlistment requirements have declined by
thirty-three percent. Sixty-five percent of high school
graduates go on to post-secondary education. Only about 16 of
one hundred youth are available as military prospects.
Prospective enlistees rated assistance with education to be
the number one attraction of military service for several
decades. That, however, is no longer the case. Prospective
enlistees and veterans observe and realize the emphasis
Congress has placed on higher education by providing more
attractive and richer education programs without the
sacrifice and risk associated with military service. This
realization inevitably results in a negative message to
prospective recruits that compounds the bad image which now
prevails about military service being an obstacle to a
rewarding and productive life--not a means to it.
One comparison dramatically illustrates the need for your
amendment. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era GI
Bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a
spouse and two children; however, twenty years later, a
veteran with an identical circumstance receives only $43
more. One other comparison illustrates how Congress is
sending precisely the wrong message on the need for high
quality military members; just last year Congress approved
the DC College Access Act that provides grants of up to
$50,000 for DC high school graduates to pursue higher
educational goals. Today, our warriors who go in harms way
will receive a total benefit of $19,296 but only after paying
$1200 to establish eligibility (many of who quality for food
stamps because of inadequate military pay). This is morally
wrong. At a time when military recruitment is difficult and
retention is declining, this is also shortsighted public
policy.
NCOA firmly believes it is a fundamental responsibility of
any great society to honor and help those who accept the
disruption and sacrifices that military service brings. The
Association also believes that the programs and services,
including the educational assistance programs, offered to
those who defend our country must be better than the programs
that are offered to those who do not. When Congress considers
education policy, the starting point should be the veteran
education benefit but that has not been the case. By
Congress' inattention to a program that is arguably the most
important recruiting and retention tool available, Congress
has devalued military service and we are witnessing the
consequences today. It will take a strong message to reverse
course and your amendment is right on target.
An unprecedented partnership of 50 military, veterans and
higher education associations endorsed H.R. 4334, The
Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act, upon which your
amendment is based. That legislation and your amendment
simply says: Individuals who volunteer for and honorably
serve in the Nation's uniformed services shall be provided an
education benefit equal to the average cost of a commuter
student at a public four-year institution of higher learning.
For those who have provided for our peace, security and
prosperity, providing them with an ``average'' education
benefit is reasonable and doable.
The Non Commissioned Officers Associations support this
amendment and urge your colleagues to do likewise and help
restore the veteran education benefit to the pre-eminent
place it should occupy in our society.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Rhea,
Director of Legislative Affairs.
____
Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
Hon. Bob Filner,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Filner: The men and women of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States fully supports your
amendment to H.R. 4635, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD
Appropriations Act, which would provide for enhanced
educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB). Although the House of Representatives recently passed
legislation that would raise the basic monthly stipend to
$600 per month, this amount is not sufficient to compensate
for over a decade of underfunding.
Due to chronic underfunding, the Montgomery GI Bill has not
kept pace with the rising cost of higher education and now
has the distinction of having the lowest usage rate
(approximately 49 percent) of any GI Bill in history.
Unfortunately, many of the eligible servicemembers and
veterans who have paid into the program come to realize that
the MGIB monthly payout is not sufficient to meet the cost of
attending school. Consequently, they must defer attending
school or forego pursuing a higher education altogether.
The historical underfunding of the Montgomery GI Bill has
been allowed to persist far too long and should not be
deferred for another year and another Congress. The VFW
applauds your effort in offering this amendment to provide
for enhanced educational assistance, and urges members of the
House to give it their fullest support.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Cullinan,
Director, National Legislative Service.
[[Page H4629]]
____
AMVETS National Headquarters,
Lanham, MD, June 16, 2000.
To: Todd Honchins.
Subject: Support for Representative Filner's Proposed
Amendment to H.R. 4635
Comments: Todd, I just received your request for a letter
in support of Congressman Filner's proposed amendment to H.R.
4635. In the interest of time, our comments are contained
below.
``AMVETS has argued for several years that the Montgomery
GI Bill in its current form no longer serves as the
recruiting and retention incentive which Congress intended
when it passed the original legislation in 1985. During the
intervening period, tuition and other related educational
costs have risen dramatically leaving the MGIB participant at
a significant disadvantage in today's educational market
place.
At a time in our history when Americans are enjoying
unprecedented prosperity, we can ill afford to allow those
men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and who, through
their sacrifices, underwrite the freedoms we enjoy, to be
left by the wayside. We know the GI Bill worked. All one has
to do is examine its success in helping World War II veterans
resume a normal life. MGIB is today's version of that success
story, however for its success to be sustained, we must
support it at an appropriate funding level. Today we read
that DoD recruiting is down; personnel retention is down,
military readiness is at an all time low and further, that
many service members qualify for food stamps.
Surely ``a grateful nation'' can do better than this in
providing support for our men and women in uniform. AMVETS
commends Congressman Filner's efforts in championing this
effort to restore the Montgomery GI Bill to an effective and
responsive program.''
David E. Woodbury,
National Executive Director.
____
National Association of
State Approving, Agencies, Inc.,
June 19, 2000.
Mr. Todd Houchins,
Democratic Counsel, Subcommittee on Benefits, Committee on
Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Cannon House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Houchins: This letter is written to express our
complete support of the amendment that Congressman Filner is
proposing to make to H.R. 4635, for the purpose of enhancing
educational assistance under chapter 30 of title 38, United
States Code. The amendment would change the benefits received
under chapter 30 in accordance with the provisions of H.R.
4334 as introduced on April 13, 2000.
We wholeheartedly believe that members of Congress should
accept Congressman Filner's amendment. Numerous studies and
reports, including the one issued by the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance on January
14, 1999, speak to the need for the Nation to give immediate
and serious attention to the importance of making
extraordinary changes in the Montgomery GI Bill. Attached is
a sheet that reflects some of the primary reasons for
immediate change. The reasons were developed by members of
the Partnership for Veterans Education, an informal coalition
of 49 nationally based military, veterans and higher
education organizations that support H.R. 4334.
We stand ready to assist Congressman Filner in helping
other members of Congress to realize the importance of this
issue and the magnitude of the positive impact that will be
realized by the acceptance of the amendment. Please let us
know what we can do to assist in the achievement of this
goal.
Sincerely,
C. Donald Sweeney,
Legislative Director.
____
Blinded Veterans Association,
Washington DC, June 16, 2000.
Hon. Bob Filner,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Filner: The Blinded Veterans Association
(BVA), the only congressionally chartered veterans service
organization exclusively dedicated to serving the needs of
our nation's blinded veterans, is extremely supportive of
your amendment to H.R. 4635, which will increase funding for
the Montgomery GI Bill by $900,000,000. BVA believes
educational assistance for our veterans needs to be a
priority of the Congress.
An increase in the Montgomery GI Bill not only serves as an
incentive for enlistment, but also assists those who might
not otherwise afford an adequate higher education and to
become a contributing member of this great nation.
Thank you, Mr. Filner, for your great work as a veterans'
advocate. We appreciate your assistance in fulfilling the
promises made to those who risk their lives to protect this
great nation.
Sincerely,
Thomas H. Miller,
Executive Director.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because
it clearly proposes legislating on an appropriations bill which
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
{time} 1515
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the Chair if there are not
dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized by this House?
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman repeat his request?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if this bill before
us, upon which a point of order has been raised because the program is
not authorized, even though I see it as an emergency item for our
veterans, is it not true that there are dozens of other programs in
this bill that are also not authorized by this committee or this House?
The CHAIRMAN. A waiver of potential objections to other portions of
the bill is not pertinent to the discussion before us.
The Chair is willing and ready to hear arguments on the pending point
of order.
Mr. FILNER. I understand the Chair, but I would argue that a waiver
is very pertinent. That is, this House can choose to protect certain
programs from a point of order and can choose not to.
I would ask the Chairman of this committee to not raise this point of
order, as he has asked the Committee on Rules to waive points of order
on dozens and dozens of other programs to provide a basic level of
college education to those who have sacrificed for this Nation. It
seems to be worthy of a waiver in this case. I would ask the chairman
to so do.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment proposes
to designate an appropriation as an emergency for purposes of budget
enforcement procedures in law. As such, it constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to challenge the ruling of
the Chair?
The CHAIRMAN. An appeal of the decision of the Chair is in order.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, based on the precedent that there are
dozens of other points of order waived in this rule, I move to appeal
the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
So, the decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Committee.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LAFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to express my strong
opposition to the very inadequate funding levels for housing and
community development in this bill.
This bill continues a very regrettable practice of the majority party
to underfund housing programs, with the hope that Congressional
Democrats and the administration will go to conference and insist in
conference on more realistic funding levels.
I do commend the work of the Subcommittee on Housing chairman, who
does the best he can with clearly inadequate funding allocations
dictated by the budget resolution. But, at the same time, I am very
concerned by inaccurate characterizations that housing is doing well
under this bill simply because budget authority is theoretically up by
billions of dollars. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of this
increase in budget authority does not benefit housing programs,
individuals or services at all, but is simply an illusion of higher
funding. I will insert into the Record a very detailed statement
explaining this phenomenon.
Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, the majority party's first act was to cut
the housing budget by 24 percent. We have been playing catchup ever
since, in spite of the efforts of Democrats to beef up funding to meet
needs.
[[Page H4630]]
This year's House bill is no different. The bill is $2.5 billion
lower than the administration's request; and, with the exception of the
illusory section 8 increases, every program is flat funded or cut.
In response to the 5.3 million households with worst case housing
needs, some 12.5 million Americans, including millions of seniors, this
bill ignores the administration's request for 120,000 incremental
vouchers. It holds out the possibility of 20,000 incrementals, but that
is contingent on very unrealistic recapture levels.
In response to the 842,000 Americans who are homeless each night,
with estimates of 3.5 million Americans homeless at some point during
the year, the bill flat funds homeless programs, and this funding level
is 21 percent lower in real terms than it was 6 years ago.
In response to a growing elderly population and escalating rents,
this bill flat funds elderly housing, leaving it some 50 percent lower
than funding levels 6 years ago.
In response to a multibillion dollar backlog of public housing repair
and modernization needs, the bill cuts public housing funding by $120
million compared to last year's level, and this level is 27 percent
lower in real terms than the level of 6 years ago.
In the wake of an historic bipartisan agreement on new markets and
community renewal, the bill cuts every community development program,
including a $275 million CDBG cut, a 20 percent Brownfields cut, and no
funding for APIC and empowerment zones.
In a response to the growing problem of predatory lending, the bill
flat funds housing counseling, a program which helps first time and
existing home buyers cope with home ownership challenges.
Finally, the bill undermines the progress HUD is making in its 2020
management reform plan. Specifically, the bill requires termination of
the HUD Community Builder staff, which provides outreach for HUD
programs, it threatens termination of contractors hired to inspect
section 8 assisted housing, and reduces HUD's staffing levels below the
already reduced target levels in this plan.
Now, we can wait for a conference to fix a grossly deficient bill,
but the right approach is for the House to fix it now, and, if we
cannot fix it in this bill, to oppose the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.
The VA-HUD bill for fiscal year 2001 produced by House Republicans
continues a trend over the last few years of providing inadequate
funding levels for housing and community development programs, with a
wink and a nod that the shortfall will be addressed in conference.
Overall, the VA-HUD bill provides $2.5 billion less than the
Administration's FY 2001 budget. With the exception of illusory
increases in the Section 8 account, not a single program receives a
funding increase; many receive major cuts. The bill continues to ignore
critical needs in affordable housing, community development, and
homelessness prevention.
For this, I do not blame the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee, who has strived mightily to do the best he can with a
clearly inadequate funding allocation. The real problem rests with the
leadership of the majority party, which continues to cling to the
fiction that their budget resolution provides adequate levels of
discretionary spending--both overall and for housing. They know they
will be bailed out in the end by Congressional Democrats and the
Administration, who will insist in conference on more realistic funding
levels--at least as long as we have this Administration in the White
House.
What is disturbing in recent years is the tendency to underfund
housing programs in the House VA-HUD bill, but to cite artificial
increases in budget authority to claim publicly that no one should
complain about the bill's inadequacy because, after all, funding is
``increased'' by billions of dollars for HUD programs.
The bill before us today is a good example of this. Proponents of the
legislation point to the fact that budget authority for HUD programs,
funded in Title 2, is $4.1 billion higher than the total approved last
fiscal year. While technically true, such ``increases'' are illusory.
They do not expand programs, improve services, or increase the number
of people served.
The major source of this illusion of funding increases relates to the
expiration of long-term Section 8 contracts. Decades ago, Congress
approved rental assistance for project-based Section 8 housing under
multi-decade contracts, with the estimated multi-year costs completely
funded in year one. As a result, no additional budget authority has
been needed in each of the years of the long-term contract to continue
to pay rental subsidies to the tenants in such project-based housing.
However, when these long term contracts expire and are renewed,
Congress must for the first time in decades appropriate budget
authority for the first year renewal cost of these rental subsidies.
The result is a significant increase in budget authority (from zero to
the annual cost) for all expiring contracts in any given year. Yet, the
effect on budget outlays of this expiration is zero. And, the impact on
the tenant is zero. The so-called budget authority ``increase'' is
simply illusory.
The majority party acknowledged this in 1997, during consideration of
the 1997 bi-partisan balanced budget bill. At the time, we were just
entering a period in which we anticipated an explosion of these
expiring HUD contracts. As a result, budgeteers anticipated annual
increases in required budget authority of several billion dollars a
year. And, the majority party promised to build in these virtually
automatic budget increases into their discretionary spending baseline.
Moreover, when Section 8 reserves and recaptures occurred over the last
few years, HUD proposed to use this excess budget authority to soften
the impact of the anticipated increases caused by expirations. Instead,
the majority party has repeatedly rescinded these Section 8 funds, in
order to offset non-housing programs. When Democrats complained, we
were assured that HUD would be made whole.
Yet, in recent years, the majority party appears to be trying to mask
the inadequate funding levels for housing by citing the budget
authority increases caused by the expiration of Section 8 contracts.
This year is no different. Approximately $3 billion in increases in
Section 8 budget authority relate to expiring contracts.
To be fair--to be consistent with what was promised in the 1997
budget bill and subsequent rescission bills--we should refrain from
characterizing these as ``increases'' in housing funding.
Moreover, there are other factors that contribute to the illusion
that funding for housing is going up this year. For example, in FY
2000, we had over $1 billion in one-time reductions in HUD budget
authority, relating to Section 8 recaptures, rescissions, and FHA
provisions which are not expected to occur in FY 2001. The effect is
the same as the Section 8 contract expiration phenomenon--the
appearance of an increase in funding, but no corresponding benefit to
housing programs, services, or low-income individuals assisted.
Finally, we have some $300 million in ``increases'' in this year's
appropriations bill which are at heart mere accounting changes for
administrative expenses and costs in FHA and GNMA. In effect, the HUD
target is taking a hit for allocations for costs in programs which,
under the mandatory side of the budget, account for billions of dollars
in profits to the federal taxpayers. In any event, this does not
produce additional housing or housing services.
What is left, out of the billions in gross budget authority increases
for housing in the bill before us today, is a few hundred million
dollars in increased Section 8 costs for inflation adjustments for
Section 8 tenants. In contrast, every other housing program is either
flat funded at last year's levels or receives cuts. And, virtually
every program is underfunded compared to need.
5.3 million households (12.5 million Americans, including millions of
senior citizens) have ``worst case housing needs''--that is, they pay
more than 50% of their income for rent or live in severely substandard
housing. The average waiting period for a Section 8 voucher or public
housing unit is over two years. In every urban area nationwide, a
minimum wage does not provide adequate income to afford a median period
apartment rental.
In response to this crisis the majority party in 1995 rescinded the
62,000 incremental Section 8 rental vouchers funded by Democrats the
year before. The pattern since then is clear: the Administration
proposes incremental vouchers, and the majority party ignores that
request in the House VA-HUD bill. This year is no different. In
response to the Administration's proposal for 120,000 incremental
vouchers, the bill holds out the mere possibility of 20,000 vouchers--
contingent on overly optimistic Section 8 recapture levels, and
therefore unlikely to materialize.
The majority justifies this inaction by blaming HUD for what it
characterizes as unacceptably low voucher utilization rates. This
criticism is not valid. A major cause for less than 100% utilization
rates is the normal down time for Section 8 recipients to find housing
opportunities--a particularly severe problem in low vacancy areas. To
the extent that some housing authorities are not doing a good job in
putting vouchers out, the problem lies with them, not with HUD.
Moreover, these concerns do not justify ignoring the tremendous unmet
rental subsidy need.
[[Page H4631]]
According to the Urban Institute, on any single night, 842,000
Americans are homeless, and at some point during the year 3.5 million
Americans are homeless. Many homeless are working poor. Yet, the VA-HUD
bill does not increase funding for homeless prevention programs,
leaving funding 21% lower in real terms than six years ago, the last
time Democrats controlled Congress.
As our population ages, and as rents escalate at a faster rate than
fixed incomes and inflation, the problem of housing affordability for
seniors continues to grow. Yet, the VA-HUD bill flat funds elderly
housing--leaving it 53% lower in real terms than the level of six years
ago. When Democrats offered an amendment to increase elderly housing by
$69 million up to the President's level, an amendment fully paid for by
FHA program changes, the majority voted no on a party line vote.
Public housing units face a multi-billion dollar backlog of repair
needs. Yet, the bill cuts public housing funding by $120 million,
compared to last year's bill. The bill's proposed level is 27% lower in
real terms than the level of six years ago.
The bill undercuts the President's recently announced New Markets
Initiative agreement with Speaker Hastert, by cutting every community
development program, including a $275 million cut from last year's
level for CDBG; a $44 million cut in CDBG Section 108 loan authority;
zero funding for Empowerment Zones; zero funding for APIC loan
guarantees (part of the New Markets Initiative); and a 20% cut in
funding for Brownfields Redevelopment.
The bill cuts the HOME program, which funds low down payment
homeownership programs and affordable housing construction. And, the
bill ignores HUD's request for a $9 million increase in housing
counseling, leaving funding down 70% compared to six years ago.
Counseling is an important tool in fighting the growing problem of
predatory lending.
Finally, the bill undermines the progress HUD is making in its 2020
Management Reform plan. Specifically, the bill requires termination of
the HUD Community Builder staff which provides outreach for HUD
programs, threatens termination of contractors hired to inspect Section
8 assisted housing, and reduces HUD staffing levels below the already
reduced target levels in this plan.
I am particularly baffled by the majority's decision to completely
eliminate the Community Builder program at HUD. This program is an
important component in HUD's consolidation plan. The purpose is to have
a staff of professionals whose sole job is to provide community
outreach for and assistance with HUD programs. The purpose is to
separate this function from program management and oversight functions.
Last year, the Appropriations Committee expressed its concern about
the ``External Community Builders'' program, especially with respect to
the way these personnel were hired. Last year's bill required the
termination of the external community builder program, and prohibited
HUD from rehiring these individuals, except through normal civil
service procedures. The bill clearly did not require or even hint at
the termination of the internal community builder program. In fact,
there was language indicating how the program should continue to be
managed.
Now, the majority is reversing itself by eliminating the community
builder program entirely, and mandating the firing of all community
builders--even those hired years ago and unaffected by last year's
policy. There are a number of reasons why this is wrong.
First, elimination of this position means that HUD will not be able
to keep open some of their smaller field offices. Without the multi-
disciplinary background of community builders, the choice will in many
cases be between closing a field office or bringing in a larger number
of personnel to cover the various program areas--personnel which are
not available in a downsized HUD. Inevitable, some smaller field
offices will be closed.
Second, it is bad policy to undermine a program designed to make HUD
more responsive and accountable to the public. This is a major setback
to HUD's management reforms. HUD will lose its staff that is
experienced in these functions, and will be forced to totally
reorganize its staffing structure, to the point where individuals go
back to mixing program management and outreach responsibilities.
Third, the bill before us, incorrectly in my view, implies that HUD
has failed to follow last year's policy directives. In fact, all
external community builders are being terminated. No one is either
slotted back into HUD directly or even given a preference because of
their role as external community builders. And, the GS levels of
replacement hires is on average significantly below the levels of the
former external community builders.
I am also baffled why funding for ``Contract Administrators'' is made
contingent on achieving unrealistic levels of Section 8 recaptures.
This line item pays for the hiring of independent contractors which
perform physical inspections of HUD-assisted project-based housing.
Last year, the Housing Subcommittee held a hearing in which the GAO
testified about the level of progress HUD is making in its management
reforms. Yet, one of their principal concerns that GAO cited about HUD
was that it did not have a good handle on its Section 8 project-based
stock. Therefore, it makes no sense, as this bill does, to make funding
for inspection of Section 8 housing contingent on unrealistic Section 8
recapture levels.
You can't have it both ways--criticizing HUD for its oversight, then
robbing HUD of the tools it needs for this oversight.
In closing, I urge members not to overlook the housing funding
inadequacies in this bill, simply because budget authority is going up,
or because we have vague promises that ``things will be taken care of
in conference.''
Five years ago, the majority party cut the HUD budget by 24%. Housing
funding has struggled to catch up ever since. This bill does not
address the 5.3 million American households with ``worse case housing
needs.'' This bill does not address the 842,000 Americans that are
homeless on any given night. This bill does not address the need to
extend our strong economic growth to all communities and individuals.
We can and should do better.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
veterans insurance and indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat.
487, $19,850,000, to remain available until expended.
veterans housing benefit program fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2001, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000
in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for
specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $161,484,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
education loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including
the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $3,400.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $220,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $52,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,726,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $432,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as
amended, $532,000, which may be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.
guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program
account
(including transfer of funds)
Not to exceed $750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this
Act for ``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care''
may be expended for the administrative expenses to carry out
the guaranteed loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter
37, subchapter VI.
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities
not under the jurisdiction of the department; and furnishing
recreational facilities,
[[Page H4632]]
supplies, and equipment; funeral, burial, and other expenses
incidental thereto for beneficiaries receiving care in the
department; administrative expenses in support of planning,
design, project management, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the department;
oversight, engineering and architectural activities not
charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or
providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under
the jurisdiction of the department, not otherwise provided
for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees
and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor,
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal
expenses of the department for collecting and recovering
amounts owed the department as authorized under 38 U.S.C.
chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq. and such sums as necessary to fund cost
comparison studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C. 8110(a)(5):
$20,281,587,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the
funds made available under this heading, not more than
$3,000,000,000 may be used for the operation and maintenance
of facilities: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $927,000,000 is for the
equipment and land and structures object classifications
only, which amount shall not become available for obligation
until August 1, 2001, and shall remain available until
September 30, 2002: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, not to exceed $900,000,000
shall be available until September 30, 2002: Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this heading,
not to exceed $28,134,000 may be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses'':
Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall conduct by contract a program of recovery audits for
the fee basis and other medical services contracts with
respect to payments for hospital care; and, notwithstanding
31 U.S.C. 3302(b), amounts collected, by setoff or otherwise,
as the result of such audits shall be available, without
fiscal year limitation, for the purposes for which funds are
appropriated under this heading and the purposes of paying a
contractor a percentage of the amount collected as a result
of an audit carried out by the contractor: Provided further,
That all amounts so collected under the preceding proviso
with respect to a designated health care region (as that term
is defined in 38 U.S.C. 1729A(d)(2)) shall be allocated, net
of payments to the contractor, to that region.
In addition, in conformance with Public Law 105-33
establishing the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care
Collections Fund, such sums as may be deposited to such Fund
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729A may be transferred to this
account, to remain available until expended for the purposes
of this account.
None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the
Department of Justice for the purposes of supporting tobacco
litigation.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
Page 9, line 3, before the period insert the following: ``,
except for the funds for the administrative and legal
expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for collecting
and recovering amounts owed the United States as authorized
under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, and the
Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et
seq.).''.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment along with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the
Committee on Veterans Affairs, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who are the co-chairs of
the House Caucus on Tobacco and Health, and the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). It amends a rider in the bill that would have
the effect of blocking the Justice Department's lawsuit against the
tobacco companies.
Tobacco use may be the single greatest threat to public health in the
United States. It kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.
It is a particular threat to children, who are bombarded by slick
advertisements inducing them to smoke, and to veterans, who often
become addicted to nicotine while in the service.
With the magnitude of the health threat, Congress' record on tobacco
has been absolutely abysmal. In 1998, I reached across party lines to
reach an agreement with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, on how to regulate tobacco. This
was an historic agreement, because the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley) and I had long been opposed to each other on tobacco issues.
Our agreement addressed many of the most contentious tobacco issues,
including FDA regulation, environmental tobacco smoke and reducing
youth smoking. But the leadership did not even allow a vote on the
floor on our bipartisan proposal.
Since then, Congress has done very little to protect children and
public health from tobacco. When the Supreme Court struck down the FDA
regulation of tobacco earlier this year, the court invited Congress to
act, calling tobacco use ``perhaps the single most significant threat
to public health in the United States.''
But Congress has not even held a single day of hearings on FDA
jurisdiction, and today we are considering legislation that would
actually shield the tobacco companies from Federal liability. This most
likely will be the only legislation which we will consider on the House
floor dealing with tobacco.
Mr. Chairman, tucked away in this bill is a rider that is worth
hundreds of billions of dollars to the tobacco industry. This rider
protects the tobacco industry at the expense of health care for our
veterans and the well-being of our children.
Last fall, the Justice Department filed the suit against the tobacco
industry. The suit alleges that decades of deceit by the tobacco
industry have caused Federal taxpayers to spend billions paying for
tobacco-related illness. The suit seeks recovery of those funds, as
well as injunctive relief, to stop the companies from marketing to
children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices.
This lawsuit is good for the American taxpayer, who spend over $25
billion a year to treat tobacco-related illnesses. Recovery of Medicare
funds would be deposited into the Medicare Trust Fund, thus adding
years to Medicare's solvency.
This lawsuit is also good for veterans. Currently the VA spends over
$1 billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Under the Medical
Care Recovery Act, any recovery of these funds would be returned to the
VA health program. The VA stands to recover billions of health care
dollars, dollars that could be used to provide critically needed health
care to our veterans.
The lawsuit is modeled on the successful litigation by the States
attorneys general, but it will have no effect on their suit or their
settlement. It will also have no effect on small retailers. The
defendants in this case are all major cigarette manufacturers.
Despite the merits of the suit, a rider in this bill prohibits the VA
from transferring funds to the Justice Department for tobacco
litigation, and effectively blocks VA from participating in the
lawsuit.
There is no question who is behind this rider. It is the tobacco
industry. Philip Morris has been actively lobbying Congress. Last week
I mailed a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that attached the talking points
Philip Morris is using. You may even hear some of those talking points
in the debate today.
Philip Morris argues this amendment will use VA health care funds for
the tobacco lawsuit.
{time} 1730
This is simply false.
The amendment expressly states that only funds that can be used for
the VA lawsuit are ``the funds for the administrative and legal
expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for collecting and
recovering amounts owed the United States,'' not funds intended for
veterans' health care.
Philip Morris also argues that the rider is not about tobacco. Of
course this issue is about tobacco. Philip Morris's argument has as
much credibility as their testimony that nicotine is not addictive.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague alleges that this bill stops the tobacco
lawsuit, that what we have done in this bill stops the tobacco lawsuit.
That is not true. I can assure the House that the VA-HUD bill does not
have jurisdiction over the Department of Justice nor its priorities.
Nothing in this bill prohibits the Administration or the Department of
Justice from moving forward with the lawsuit.
One of the problems with these politically motivated debates is that
individual's motivations are questioned.
Mr. Chairman, I do not smoke; I did. I realized it was habit forming;
I realized it was bad for my health, so I quit
[[Page H4633]]
about 25 years ago. I hope every American comes to that realization
themselves. Those who would support the subcommittee's position here
would be accused of being sold out to the tobacco industry. Well,
again, questioning people's motivations does very little to dignify the
debate. But I would state for the record that I have never accepted
tobacco contributions.
We are trying to craft a bill here that provides resources for our
veterans. We have heard Member after Member, one after another, come up
and say we are not putting enough money in here for veterans' medical
care, one after another. We are doing our level best to fund veterans'
medical care. We put in $1.7 billion last year, $1.35 billion this
year; and people still say it is not enough.
If this lawsuit started to draw down veterans' medical care funds,
and that is what this does, regardless of what the gentleman says, it
comes out of the veterans' medical care budget, which is $4 million to
$6 million a year every year for however long the suit goes on.
We have heard the gentleman from New Jersey talk about veterans with
hepatitis C. We tried to put additional funds in to deal with that
deadly disease, but we did not meet expectations. There is more need
out there. This takes $4 million to $6 million out of the veterans
budget for hepatosis C, for HIV/AIDS, for spinal injuries, for mental
health care, for drug prescriptions.
Mr. Chairman, these funds are precious; and they are dear. Let the
Justice Department take it out of their own budget. That is their job.
They are the lawyers. They have thousands and thousands of lawyers at
the Department of Justice. The VA has hundreds and hundreds of doctors,
and thousands and thousands of veterans; and we need to use those
resources to take care of that commitment for medical care.
If the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Administration want to
use VA dollars to pay for this lawsuit, they can take the money from
the Secretary's office or the general counsel's office. This bill says
we cannot take money from veterans' medical care account. This language
is limited to one account out of 18 that funds the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
I am also concerned about how money derived from this litigation will
be spent. No one on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies has seen a formal, binding agreement from the Administration
or the Department of Justice on how these dollars will be spent between
VA, Defense and Health and Human Services. The Administration tried in
the past to bolster the budget with new spending from a fictional
tobacco settlement. Yet VA's health funding remained level.
I am all for seeing more dollars for VA in health care and I think
every member is, but I have not seen the contract yet. The
Administration has never said that any settlement would go to the
veterans. In fact, in their third-party collection funding scheme,
those funds would go to the general Treasury and not to the veterans
agency or to veterans' medical care.
So regardless of what we are going to hear, let the Justice
Department handle the lawsuits, let the Veterans Administration handle
veterans' medical care.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this place is something else. I am no blue nose. If
people want to make an informed decision to smoke, so be it. I used to
smoke three packs of cigarettes a day. At the same time, I worked with
asbestos. Johns Manville Corporation knew since 1939 that asbestos
caused cancer, but I did not when I was working with it, because they
hid it from consumers and from the Government itself. I also did not
know, but Johns Manville did, and I believe the tobacco companies did
too, that there was a synergistic effect between asbestos and tobacco,
and when one is exposed to both, one's chances of getting cancer
increased at a geometric rate. So very frankly, since those days I have
been waiting for the shoe to drop.
We have the same situation with the tobacco company executives that
we had with the asbestos company executives. Both of them lied through
their teeth for years. When the gentleman from California's (Mr.
Waxman) subcommittee was holding the hearings, we all remember the
famous seven tobacco company presidents standing up and swearing to
tell the truth, and then proceeding to tell the committee that no, no,
no, they did not believe that tobacco caused cancer. Well, they had in
their files information that demonstrated that they certainly knew it
did.
So we have listened to their bull gravy for 50 years. Now we have a
question as to whether or not we are going to do anything about it or
not.
The gentleman said there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the
tobacco settlement, or the tobacco lawsuit from going forward. That is
speaking only half the truth, because what is happening is that the
appropriation bill which we will consider next, the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriation bill, forbids the
Justice Department from using its own funds to pursue a tobacco
settlement; and then they have in other appropriation bills, in the
Defense bill, in this bill, and I believe in one other appropriation
bill, they also say that you cannot use funds from any of the other
agencies and allow the Justice Department to use those funds from other
agencies to pursue their tobacco suit either.
So slowly, the Justice Department is being surrounded by this
multiplicity of attacks in appropriation bills. I think that that is
wrong, and I think we ought to adopt the gentleman's amendment.
Now, I know that we will hear people say ``oh, we are going to take
money away from veterans' health care and use it to fund this suit, and
it is just going to go into the pockets of the lawyers.'' The fact is
that I offered seven amendments in one session alone, trying to get the
majority party to increase funding for veterans' health care, and they
turned them all down and they did that 2 years in a row. I would
suggest now, to say that the veterans' department, which has the
potential to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue
for veterans, for the treatment of their problems, to say that they
cannot try to do that by expending $4 million out of their own funds to
pursue this case on behalf of every veteran and on behalf of the
taxpayers is ludicrous, at best.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out also that if one checks the
facts about litigation only enriching lawyers, the administration has
indicated that the department has not engaged any lawyer on a
contingency-fee basis. They did engage one firm on a limited
arrangement on terms that were favorable to the Government. Under that
contract, which ran for 3 months, the firm provided assistance to the
Department at a reduced rate of $75 per hour, well below normal billing
fees. The payment for services to that firm total less than $80,000.
So we should not kid ourselves. Every time we hear somebody say, this
is not about tobacco, remember, it is about tobacco, and it is about
lying, and it is about whether or not we will defend the taxpayers'
interests to recoup the billions of dollars that have been spent. It is
about meeting our responsibilities, to see to it that the taxpayer is
not stuck with the cost of providing health care to veterans and other
folks in this society because the tobacco companies lied and caused
billions of dollars' worth of damage in the process.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we promised the veterans a couple of years
ago when we took away money for their disability based on tobacco
smoking and all of the illnesses that resulted from it, that we would
pursue this litigation and get back into the veterans' program money
that rightfully belongs in that program because of the deception add
bad-doing, fraudulent actions of the tobacco companies. After years of
deceit and deception, it is right to hold the tobacco companies
accountable for their false promises, misrepresentations, suppression
of knowledge about the health risks of tobacco.
This rider would stop the litigation. The Attorney General, Janet
Reno,
[[Page H4634]]
today, in a press conference, announced that if this rider goes
through, prohibiting the transfer of funds, she will not have the
ability to pursue this litigation; she would have to drop the lawsuit.
We are not, and I want to emphasize this, because there seems to be
some misunderstanding even on the part of the chairman of the
subcommittee about our amendment. We are not transferring money from
veterans' health care, but only from the veterans' health care fund for
litigation, for expenses and legal fees. What more appropriate use of
those funds would there be than to go against the tobacco companies to
recover money for the veterans' health program and to keep our promise
to the veterans that we would get money to put into veterans' health to
make up for that which we took away from them over the years, just 2
years ago and to make up for the deceptions that the American
Government placed on veterans when we encouraged them to start smoking
in the past, which caused so much of the death, disability, and illness
for which we could now get recovery from the tobacco industry. I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. OBEY. I would simply say that to suggest that the veterans are
getting a bad deal by asking that $4 million be spent on this suit when
we can get back hundreds of millions of dollars in return is patently
preposterous on its face.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by our
colleague from California, because it simply allows the wheels of
justice to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership
of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming facts to
the contrary, the leadership effectively denied veterans the
opportunity to seek legitimate compensation from the Department of
Veterans Affairs for tobacco-related illnesses and disease, as well as
tobacco addiction, during their service in the Armed Forces. That day,
I believe, was one of the least noble moments in the history of this
body.
Now, adding insult to injury, the leadership of the House seeks to
deny the funds needed for our Federal Government to continue to seek,
in court, the recovery of costs the Federal Government has incurred
treating tobacco-related illnesses. It is a sad day indeed when the
leadership of this House seeks to shield the tobacco industry from
legitimate legal action brought by the Federal Government.
We must not forget these facts: funds spent by the Department of
Veterans Affairs for health care used to treat tobacco illnesses and
disease have been estimated to be between $1 billion and $4 billion a
year. As many as 75 percent of our World War II veterans began smoking
as young adults during their military service. Cigarettes have been
distributed free of charge to members of the Armed Forces as part of
their so-called ``C-rations,'' and the labeling requirements warning of
the dangers of nicotine and tobacco did not become mandatory for
products distributed through the military system until 1970, 5 years
after this labeling was required for the civilian market.
{time} 1745
Tobacco products were sold by the military at substantially
discounted rates. As late as 1996, commissary tobacco prices were up to
76 percent less than commercial retail prices.
Those who support the tobacco industry will make the argument that
using VA funds to finance this lawsuit will mean less money for medical
care. The truth is, these dollars would be added to the
administration's request after negotiations between the VA and the
administration have concluded.
As an additional safeguard, our amendment would be directed at using
only funds that would otherwise be used for nonmedical purposes;
specifically, for the administration and legal expenses incurred in
pursuing this lawsuit. It is misleading to say that these funds will be
designated for health care.
Earlier today, four major veterans organizations spoke in support of
this amendment. Veterans who will benefit from the successful outcome
of this litigation will not be fooled. They want this litigation.
In the name of justice, support
the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, people back in my district always ask me, they say, is
it difficult being in Congress? They say, what is the worst thing that
goes on? I always reply, the partisanship that exists between the two
parties.
No matter what we do, how much we try and increase, put up
priorities, the other side of the aisle wants the majority back, so
they will blast anything we do.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said that he had 7
different amendments to increase veterans' health care. Most of us on
both sides of the aisle support increasing health care for veterans,
and also making sure that the fraud and abuse, like within the VA
system, $1 million a day, is taken care of.
Yet, when we get to the House floor here, Members will see and hear,
well, it is only tax breaks for the rich. We do not think that paying
taxes back to people because they get married is a tax break for the
rich, or money that people invest with their families their whole
lives, they pay taxes on, build up their business or farm, and where
the government wants to come in and take 55 percent of it back, that
that is a tax break for the rich. There is a legitimate difference of
opinion.
I would say to my friends on the other side, we added $1.7 billion,
the highest ever for veterans' health care last year, and $1.4 billion
this year. Yet, it is never enough. We will hear, ``more research, more
HUD,'' and in the last bill, ``more Labor-HHS.'' On every single line
item, Members the other side of the aisle say, we want more, we want
more.
There is a difference between fiscal responsibility and
irresponsibility. For 30 years they ran the House. Let me give an idea.
If we pay down the national debt, we spend nearly $1 billion a day on
just the interest, so $360-some billion we would have put into the
coffers. But if we continue spending like my colleagues on the other
side did when they had the majority, the other side of the aisle, then
we just keep increasing that debt.
In 1993, when they had the White House, the House, and the Senate,
they cut veterans' COLAs. My own party at one time wanted to cut
veterans' COLAs. We fought that in our conference and defeated it. I
think it is wrong. But Members just continue to spend and build up the
national debt.
They talk about the President's budget. We as Republicans brought the
President's budget back last year to the floor to show how ridiculous
it was. Not many Democrats voted for it. Yet, they say the President
wanted $1.2 billion, and we are only putting a $500 million increase,
so we are cutting. That kind of rhetoric is what makes it difficult to
work here, instead of coming together and helping in veterans' health
care.
I am a veteran, a combat veteran. Most of my colleagues on that side
of the aisle know it. The only area which some of the people that are
blasting us will support is every other area but defense. Watch, there
will be a couple of amendments here today to take out selective
service.
In time of national emergency, in time of national emergency we are
going to need the selective service program not only for biological and
chemical weapons that may come forward, but if we end up in a WWII or
World War III, that is the only time it would be used.
I ask my colleagues, cut the rhetoric: ``Tax breaks for the rich.''
Some people believe it, but they know it is ridiculous. Cut the
rhetoric: Well, the President's bill did this. They did not even vote
for the President's budget. Only four Democrats voted for it, so the
numbers there are inaccurate.
Let us sit down and work in a bipartisan way. Let us increase
veterans and let us support it, and take this bill on to conference.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The
Department of Veterans Affairs' medical budget is not the appropriate
place
[[Page H4635]]
from which to fund Department of Justice lawsuits. It funds the
Veterans Administration Department's own legal expenses, and funding
Department of Justice lawsuits to the tune of $4 million or even
higher, because there is no limitation here, would significantly reduce
funds available for veterans' medical care.
Mr. Chairman, it has been stated or alluded to that the effect of the
restriction placed in the bill, and let me read it, Mr. Chairman, it
says, ``None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the
Department of Justice for purposes of supporting tobacco litigation.''
The restriction in here only says that none of the funds out of the
Veterans Affairs medical budget can be transferred to the Department of
Justice for its litigation purposes.
It has been alleged that that has the effect of blocking the
Department of Justice's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. I
respectfully disagree with that. It does no such thing. It does not
preclude the Department of Justice from moving forward with lawsuits.
What it does do, the bill language simply prohibits the Veterans
Administration from transferring veterans' medical care dollars to the
Department of Justice. That is the only intention and the only
motivation, to preserve those scarce medical care dollars.
That money would come out of the medical care collections fund.
Indeed, it does fund legal expenses for the Veterans Administration in
this area: ``Legal expenses of the Department for collecting and
recovering amounts owed the Department.'' There are people very busily
working over at the Veterans Administration spending dollars out of
that account to collect third party pay, to collect dollars that are
owed from other areas. They significantly multiply their salaries. That
is, they are responsible for generating a lot of dollars. Take that $4
million out of this account and, arguably, we would reduce by a factor
of many times $4 million the amount of money available for veterans'
medical care.
The budget for veterans' medical care has been severely stressed
during the last several years. After 2 years of flat budgets, Congress
enacted a substantial increase in medical care last year. The bill
before us today builds on that increase by fully funding the
President's budget request for medical care, more than $1.3 billion
over current funding.
I cannot support an effort to divert funding from this priority in
order to fund the operations of another agency. God bless the other
agency, let them move forward with their lawsuit with their own funds;
in this case, the Department of Justice. That department, the
Department of Justice, has received significant increases during the
past decade, as opposed to the Veterans Administration. In 1990, the
Department of Justice received $8.8 billion. By 1996, that had risen to
over $16 billion, and current year funding is over $20 billion.
The Department of Justice is not an agency that has faced the same
restrictive budgets as the VA. It can afford to prosecute this lawsuit
without taking money out of the veterans account.
Each appropriations subcommittee must establish its own priorities
for the agencies under its jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, let me point out
that the veterans organizations are split on this issue, but that the
American Legion, while it supports the Department of Justice going
forward with its lawsuit, does not support taking health care dollars
from the VA to pay for the litigation and thinks it is
counterproductive, especially with the growing demand for services by
the aging veteran population.
This amendment does not stop any litigation, or this restriction,
excuse me. It simply provides that that money will not come out of
veterans' health care, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the ranking member and the
chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in rising in
opposition to this amendment, and I would like to clarify some
misconceptions about the language its sponsors are attempting to remove
from our bill.
Contrary to some of the Dear Colleagues and other letters that have
been circulated, the language in the VA-HUD bill does one thing, it
prevents the VA from taking funding from the veterans' medical care
account to pay for lawsuits against tobacco companies.
Our committee language does not, I emphasize, does not prevent the VA
from giving the Justice Department money to pursue their lawsuit, so
the gentleman's amendment is not necessary.
Frankly, I am no friend of tobacco, of the industry, but we have not
worked so hard on our committee in a bipartisan way to increase the
medical accounts over the past 4 years and the VA's budget on behalf of
our veterans to see the administration and the Department of Justice
push our veterans out of the way so they can flog tobacco companies
using funding from this and other appropriations bills.
The statistics are grim. An estimated 30,000 veterans from the World
War II era are dying each month. These men and women need medical care
today, not 3 or 4 years down the road. That is why none of this
critical funding should be diverted from their medical care, care that
they have more than earned and deserve. Too much has been taken away
from our veterans already to deal them this additional blow.
For those who might forget or wish to forget, the TEA-21 bill signed
by the President in 1998 and sponsored by a majority in this Chamber,
and supported by them, cut veterans' disability payments for smoking-
related illnesses by $14.4 billion to pay for highways and other
important transportation projects. I voted against this bill because
that $15.4 billion should have been spent on compensating veterans with
tobacco-related illnesses, or redirecting it into paying for veterans'
medical care for veterans with smoking-related illnesses, as well as
other veterans, instead of paving more highways and building more roads
and taking care of more worthwhile projects.
Now, the administration is proposing to take $4 million from the
fiscal year 2001 allocation for veterans' medical care accounts to pay
the Justice Department's legal expenses to sue tobacco companies.
Some have argued to me that $4 million is a small amount of money and
its diversion makes little difference overall to veterans' medical
care. But I can tell the Members, $4 million would provide for veterans
in my district a lot of necessary things related to Hepatitis C,
related to prescription drugs.
Our committee language already allows the VA to use funding from
somewhere else within its budget, just not from an account that
directly pays for veterans' medical care. There are a number of other
accounts within the Department of Justice that the VA can take money
from, including departmental administration, general operating
expenses, medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses,
construction, major and minor projects, other types of grants.
These accounts total over $1.36 billion, and the VA cannot find $4
million from those accounts to pay for this lawsuit? That is
incredible. The Secretary should cut his own budget and reduce
administrative overhead before he raids the veterans' medical care
accounts to comply with White House directives.
The VA should use every dollar appropriated for veterans' medical
care to provide for the men and women who fought our wars, and to
``care for him who shall have borne the battle.''
I do not oppose lawsuits against the tobacco industry. I certainly do
not receive any financial contributions from them. I do oppose the use
of veterans' medical care dollars to pay for the Justice Department's
lawsuit.
{time} 1800
In closing, let me repeat that this language does not prohibit the VA
from participating in the lawsuit. Our committee language does protect
veterans' medical care dollars to make sure they are spent today for
the reason they were intended, to provide for the 25 million men and
women in this country who bore the cost of battle and who have fought
to defend our Nation's freedom.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and my colleagues and my
amendment.
[[Page H4636]]
This is not about taking money out of the medical care budget. This is
about taking money, $4 million, that is for medical care litigation.
That is when the Veterans Administration has an opportunity to go out
and get money that is owed to them, then they go to court and litigate.
Now what better expenditure than to expend that litigation money on
fighting the tobacco companies? We have seen Attorneys General from
across this country litigate and take the lead, before the Federal
Government and this Congress did, to litigate against the tobacco
industry; and they won $246 billion to repay Medicaid costs related to
tobacco.
Why is this such a good investment to take the tobacco companies to
court? Well, I will tell my colleagues why it is a good investment. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who has offered this amendment,
had hearings before the Congress. The tobacco companies came before the
Congress; and they said their product, under oath, did not addict
people. They said their product, under oath, was not addictive, was not
harmful to health.
Then we found out when we looked at internal documents that, in fact,
they knew the dangers and the death and destruction that this product
was causing. We are talking about veterans, many of whom started
smoking in the 1950s and the 1960s when there were no warnings on
cigarette packages then.
There were days when the veterans used to get free cigarettes from
the tobacco companies. I wonder why they gave them free cigarettes? We
now know that in the 1950s and the 1960s they were conducting studies.
They knew of the addictive propensity of their product, and they knew
they were addicting people to their product.
It is time that we make the veterans and the Veterans Administration
whole. We should get back what is owed to the veterans, what is owed to
the Veterans Administration. That is why this expenditure for
litigation makes so much sense. Why do you think the tobacco companies
settle for $246 billion? They were cutting their losses.
We have a great opportunity here to make whole expenditures for
veterans health care cost. What a great time to do it, at a time we are
trying to meet our commitment to our world or to veterans for health
care, at a time when consolidation is causing anguish among veterans
all across the country.
In Veterans Administration facilities, many of these veterans are
there because of health-related costs that they got from smoking
tobacco, from smoking cigarettes at a time when tobacco companies told
them it was not dangerous, at a time when tobacco companies did not
warn them of the dangerous propensities.
That is why we go to court, that is why we have this civil lawsuit,
and that is why we are looking to make whole the Veterans
Administration and make whole the veterans of this country and others
who were victims. We are talking about representing victims in court.
We have a $4 million litigation account where the Veterans
Administration takes and says, where can we make whole our expenditures
in health care. How can anybody argue that the proper place for the
Veterans Administration, too, to be made whole for health care cost
than going after big tobacco.
We have been remiss in not going after the tobacco companies earlier.
We have let the Attorneys General take the lead on it. We have let
State legislatures all over the country take the lead on taking on big
tobacco while the Congress has sat back and waited.
What would we do if Jeffrey Wigand had not had the courage to come
forward and tell us as a scientist from one of the major tobacco
companies that, as a scientist, they were manipulating the nicotine in
their products, knowing it was addicting people? That is what this
liability is all about.
This is not a partisan issue. A cosponsor of this amendment is the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), Republican, cochair of the Tobacco
Task Force on Health in the Congress, an outstanding Republican Member
of this body. He is a cosponsor of this amendment. So this is not a
partisan amendment.
It is not about politics. It is about whether or not the Federal
Government is going to move forward and try to find a way to make whole
the Veterans Administration, that nearly $4 billion a year that has to
be accounted for. In fact, in the 105th Congress, we told the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century that they should take, and I quote
again, ``all steps necessary to recover from the tobacco companies
amounts corresponding to the losses and the costs which would be
incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatments.'' We
told them to go get this money.
Support the Waxman amendment.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that it is politically correct to be
able to attack the tobacco industry in its totality today. In the
spirit of full disclosure, I will have to admit that I do represent a
large number of tobacco farmers. But this really has nothing to do
about tobacco farmers.
The Waxman amendment, as has been said by many people before I am
speaking right now, indicates, and it is true, that under the Waxman
amendment, the Department of Justice will be able to take money from
the veterans' medical care dollars to finance a speculative lawsuit
under the theory of which the Federal Government has never filed one
like this before. So that is one reason to oppose this amendment, that
it would take veterans medical care dollars to finance the lawsuit.
Now, in September of 1999, the Federal Government filed this lawsuit
seeking $25 billion to recover money spent by the Federal military and
civilian insurers on smoking-related illnesses. Prior to that, the
State attorneys general had filed a lawsuit in which the tobacco
companies entered into an agreement to settle for about $246 billion
over 25 years.
I would just point out that, in 1999, all of the money that was spent
on veterans' medical care in the United States amounted to about $17
billion in 1999. I think it will also be interesting to know that the
legal fees alone in the State lawsuits amounted to almost $12 billion.
So there was almost as much money paid in legal fees in that lawsuit as
there was spent for veterans' medical care in its totality.
Now, another reason that I would oppose the Waxman amendment is the
simple fact that Federal and State governments have known for more than
30 years that smoking does create health risks. Yet, with that
knowledge, they all permitted the sale of tobacco products and profited
nicely from it, indeed enormously from it from the excise tax. Not only
did the Federal Government profit from the excise tax for the sale of
tobacco products, but the Federal Government gave cigarettes to its
young men and women serving in the military around the world.
So how can now the Federal Government tell tobacco companies that
they may lawfully sell a product that the Federal Government knew would
cause injury and then turn around and sue the companies for causing the
injury that they knew would be occurring. That is another reason that I
would oppose the Waxman amendment.
Then a fourth reason I would simply say this, that the Justice
Department's complaint is only the most recent, and I am sure it will
not be the last effort to use litigation to bludgeon private firms in
order to accomplish a prohibition that government could not win in the
Congress. So since they cannot win in the Congress, they go to the
courts under novel theories of law to collect on something that the
Federal Government already knew was harmful and, furthermore, gave it
to men and women serving in the military around the world.
So those are four of the reasons that I would ask the Members to
oppose the Waxman amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, we often are on this floor wringing our hands about why
the public treats us so contemptuously and thinks so little of us all
too often when we know we are here to do the people's work. But every
once in a while, a bill comes along that reinforces that low esteem
that the American public has for us, and this is one of them. The fact
that there is an effort right now, an organized effort to protect the
tobacco
[[Page H4637]]
industry from the lawsuits. That is why I am here to strongly support
the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others
to get rid of this rider.
Now, I have heard the arguments, oh, well the Justice Department can
use its own money, or the Justice Department can get it from another
fund. But there are all these other efforts going on at the same time
which everybody knows about that would prevent any money, even a single
dollar going.
We have got riders coming up in the Commerce Justice bill. There are
riders all over the place that are trying to thwart these lawsuits
against the tobacco industry. It would be more credible if it were not
for the fact that the veterans are all for these lawsuits going
forward, including the American Legion. Four of them have endorsed the
Waxman amendment. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, AmVets, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans have explicitly
endorsed this amendment that would allow these lawsuits to go forward
and this small amount of money, relatively small amount of money from a
litigation fund to go after the tobacco companies.
Why should we not? Tobacco-related illnesses cost the Federal
taxpayers approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the Federal share
of Medicaid, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid.
The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-
related illness. The Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion. Indian
Health Services pays $300 million. The Veterans Administration pays $4
billion, not $4 million, $4 billion a year to treat tobacco-related
illnesses.
So why not take a portion of that overall fund, not the fund directly
going to services, but the litigation fund to try and get some of that
money back?
I will tell my colleagues, I think that the American people
understand that tobacco is costing them, it is costing them and their
families and their lives, and it is costing their taxpayer dollars.
These thinly veiled efforts to protect the tobacco industry are not
going to be viewed very well by the American people. We should all
stand up together, Republicans and Democrats, because I agree this is
not and should not be a partisan issue. We should stand up together and
support this amendment.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the provision that this amendment seeks to strike reeks
of tobacco, it reeks of special interest, and it reeks of injustice. I
think that this rider, and of course there has been considerable
competition through the years, but it is truly the most disgusting that
I have seen since this same crowd came to this same House and snuck
into a bill for small business tax relief, $50 billion in a tax credit
for the same tobacco industry, so disgusting that once it was exposed,
they had to back off and remove the provision.
{time} 1815
Indeed, that action is one of the only bits of action that this House
of Representatives has taken during the last 6 years to deal with that
plague of nicotine addiction that kills thousands every day in this
country.
To those who say turn to the legislative branch instead of the
judicial, Americans can look at what has happened in the last 6 years
and rightly say that the tobacco industry has a stranglehold on this
House. Sometimes we can prevent it from doing more wrong, but we have
been totally unable to overcome the tremendous strength of the tobacco
industry over the current leadership of this House to do anything
affirmatively for the 3,000 children that every day will become
addicted to tobacco.
Supporters of this provision have the audacity to say we will not do
anything about the children and their suffering from tobacco, and the
fact that so many will eventually die from emphysema and lung cancer
and heart disease, but we can find it in our schedule and in our hearts
to provide more special interest treatment for this same industry. The
friends of tobacco have the audacity to stand on this floor this
evening and tell the American people that they are not terminating this
lawsuit, they are just cutting off the funds necessary to its success.
Let me ask my colleagues if they think Phillip Morris and RJR, and
all the other big tobacco companies, are going to spare any funds when
they are dealing with any thick-carpet lawyer in the country who will
take their dirty money to defend them in this case. No, they are going
to have an open checkbook. They are going to spend whatever it takes to
obstruct the justice that this case deserves.
I stood next to Janet Reno earlier in the day, with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) and leaders of our veterans'
organizations, and heard her say in no unqualified terms that the
effect of a vote against this amendment is a vote to dismiss the well-
justified claims of American taxpayers against the tobacco industry.
The provision that we are voting on tonight is testament to the
weakness of big tobacco's legal case. They are seeking a motion to
dismiss not in a court of law, relying on the justice system; no, they
have come here to the Congress, a Congress that they have worked over
pretty well through the years, particularly in election years. And they
have asked the Congress to grant the motion to dismiss. This is just
the latest underhanded maneuver in which they have engaged.
What is at stake here is a rather clear choice. It is a choice
between defending our veterans who have defended us or defending the
continued wrongs of the tobacco industry. I believe we ought to stand
with the veterans. They were there today with Attorney General Reno
also, one veteran group after another, the Paralyzed Veterans, the
Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS,
speaking out and asking us to defend interests, as they were willing to
defend our country, by supporting the Waxman amendment. We owe them
nothing less.
And, of course, this is not the first time that big tobacco has
trampled our veterans, just as they have trampled on our children. In
each of the last two years I have advanced legislation in this Congress
to give our veterans their fair claim against Saddam Hussein and his
Iraqi assets that have been frozen for a decade. But big tobacco said,
no, we want to go first. We want to get reimbursed for all the
cigarettes we sold the Iraqis before our veterans get reimbursed on
their just claims. It is that same kind of greedy attitude that they
bring tonight to this House, saying that they deserve immunity, which
is what they would effectively gain if the Waxman amendment is
defeated--immunity to continue committing the same wrongs they have
been engaging in previously.
The American people have a much greater understanding of the wrongs
done by the tobacco industry than this Congress has demonstrated over
the last 6 years. 430,000 people every year will die as a result of
tobacco, thousands will require care in hospitals and hospices. We
ought to be able to remove at least some of the tremendous cost of the
care incurred for the American taxpayer and for the American veteran.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment.
I do this as a public health nurse, for I have seen firsthand the
serious consequences of smoking-related illnesses, and I am appalled at
the behavior of the tobacco firms. This is a time when accountability
is called for.
We speak here today on behalf of our constituents. And I am speaking
on behalf of the veterans I represent. I know their national leaders
were here today testifying to the Justice Department, but they have
spoken to me directly and to many of us across this country, as they
are bearing the price for what has happened throughout the decades as a
result of their exposure and addiction to tobacco in the call of their
military duty. We need to speak for them.
I speak also for other citizens in my district, citizens who are
aware and are aroused by the injustices that have been done. I think of
a particular physician in San Luis Obispo, Dr. Steve Hanson, tireless
in his work on tobacco-use prevention among young people in our
community but also on the need for treatment to be available, working
through the American Medical Association and the San Luis Obispo
Medical Society, an articulate voice on
[[Page H4638]]
behalf of the justice that needs to be done in this case.
This amendment will allow for the continuation of litigation to
recover tobacco-related health costs that have burdened the American
taxpayer for many years. The cigarettes that were put into GI rations
and unwittingly caused addictions are now being borne out in the health
and illness situations of so many of our seniors who are veterans and
who are paying terrific consequences with their lives, suffering from
emphysema, heart disease, and cancer as they are aging. These
individuals need and cry out for a response that needs to be stimulated
and encouraged in this body.
Janet Reno has stated that if this rider to the VA-HUD appropriation
passes, the Department of Justice would have no ability to continue in
their crucial litigation on behalf of veterans. This amendment protects
veterans. Under the Medical Care Recovery Act, any recovery of these
tobacco costs would go directly to the VA and defense health programs.
As Members consider their votes, I urge them to remember that the
tobacco companies concealed what they knew about the damaging health
effects of smoking for decades. During those same decades, the
consequences of smoking were played out in the lives of citizens across
this country, and veterans' lives as well; and the cost has been borne
by everyone. No other industry is close to matching the cigarette
companies' record of misconduct and harm to the public interest.
If Congress intervenes in the judicial with this VA-HUD rider, the
tobacco industry will receive unprecedented and unwarranted protection
that will never be available to other more responsible companies. So
Congress must hold Big Tobacco accountable, and I encourage my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Waxman amendment.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I did not plan to speak on this
amendment, but I was listening to the discussion back in my office and
I thought, how silly do we think the American people are.
I think it was 62 years ago, I am 72 at the present time, when my
mother and father said, There will be no use of tobacco in this house;
it is addictive and it is injurious to your health. That was 62 years
ago, and here we stand and we say, boy, people lied to us and we did
not know it. Now, my colleagues know that that is nonsense. We have
known it for a long, long, long, time.
But I am also surprised when we stand down here and we talk about the
cost of tobacco. There is not anyone, probably in this House, who is a
leading campaigner against the use of tobacco. One of our young
Congressmen when I first came here, a diabetic, a chain smoker, I tried
and tried and tried my best to help him break the habit, but he could
not and he died very young.
I am amazed when we talk about the cost, when no one talks about
alcohol. My attorney general came to me and said, we have to have this
money; we have to have this money, boy, the cost to Medicaid and
Medicare. And I said, wait a minute, the cost to Medicaid and Medicare,
the cost to veterans health? Talk about alcohol. It is only about 10,
12, 15, 20 times as great in relationship to the cost, but it goes way
beyond that. Abusive in the home, physical abuse, mental abuse, and on
and on the list goes. And yet somehow or other we do not take that on
because, I suppose, it is socially acceptable; and so we talk about
tobacco.
Then someone indicated that, well, tobacco has their hands on the
Congress. Well, tobacco may have their hands on some individuals in the
Congress, as it does on individuals all over the country, but it has
nothing to do with one's ability to think clearly about the issue. So,
again, I just do not understand what it is we are trying to do in
relationship to this amendment other than try to confuse the public
that somehow or other there are few in this Congress who really are
fighting this issue and that we did not know it was addictive and we
did not know that it caused health problems, when, of course, we have
known that for 50, 60, 70, 80 years.
In the last 20 or 30, as a matter of fact, signs have been
everywhere, and put there by the Government, indicating that it is
injurious to our health and that it is addictive.
So I think we ought to switch. If we want to move money, move it, but
then give a good reason for doing it. But, for goodness sakes, we
should not try to make the public think that we know more than they,
and that they do not know already that it is an addictive issue and it
is also a health problem.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen-Evans-
Meehan amendment. This amendment will remove the rider in this bill
that prohibits the Department of Veterans Affairs from aiding the
Justice Department in its suit against Big Tobacco.
And in response to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I
would say that tobacco is addictive. It has been proven to be
addictive. And alcohol has caused all sorts of problems in this
country, there is all sorts of abuse of alcohol; but it is not
addictive in the same way.
No industry, no industry deserves a special exemption from Federal
liability, and without help from the VA, the Justice Department will
have to drop its suit against the big tobacco companies. We should not
be legislating special protections for an industry that has lied to the
Congress and deceived the American people.
The VA spends more than $4 billion annually treating tobacco-related
illnesses. If the Justice Department's suit is successful, and I
believe that it will be, the VA will recover billions of dollars spent
on health care for veterans. If this amendment fails, then the bill
will prevent the VA from obtaining billions of dollars to help veterans
who suffer from tobacco-related illnesses.
Why should we not help those veterans? They need our help, and we
ought to stand with them. We should not be trying to bail out Big
Tobacco.
This amendment does not take $1 away from veterans' health care. It
uses money in the VA's administrative and legal expenses account to
help fund the suit against Big Tobacco. Yet the tobacco companies are
spending enormous amounts of money and working hard to convince Members
that the Waxman amendment takes away from veterans' health care. That
is absolutely false.
In 1998, we passed a highway bill here in this House that became law.
And in that legislation is language that urges the Attorney General and
the Secretary of the VA to sue the tobacco companies so that money
could be recovered to go to veterans' health care. And what we see in
this bill today is a provision that would nullify what we did in 1998.
It would prevent that money from being used, the litigation money, from
being used to recover money for our veterans.
Since when, Mr. Chairman, have the tobacco companies cared about the
health of the American people? They make a product, which used as
directed, kills people. Their future prosperity depends on enticing
young people to take up smoking. They swore they were not doing that
just a few years ago, and we have found since that it was not true.
The tobacco companies want relief from a legitimate lawsuit at the
expense of our veterans. A vote for this amendment is a vote for
veterans' health care and against the unlimited greed of the tobacco
industry. Vote ``yes'' on the Waxman amendment.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am very proud today to stand as one of the sponsors
of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Meehan), for their leadership on this issue.
I stood on the floor a year ago asking that we fully fund veterans
health care through the independent budget. We were not successful at
that time, although there was a lot of discussion about the importance
of veterans' health care. We have yet to fully fund at the level that
has been put forward by the veterans' organizations to fully fund
veterans' health care.
[[Page H4639]]
This amendment is supported by the Veterans for Foreign Wars, the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and
AMVETS. This amendment is about keeping our word. Very simple. It is
very simple. As my colleagues have said, in 1998, in the transportation
bill, we said that dollars would be removed for service-related tobacco
illnesses. Rather than moving ahead at that time, in fact, we called on
the VA, in the budget bill, to take all steps necessary to recover from
the tobacco companies.
{time} 1830
So this was 2 years ago we passed a bill that says all steps
necessary to recover from the tobacco companies. Two years later, we
are here with a bill that says they cannot sue the tobacco companies.
What happened in the last 2 years? What happened is a sleight of hand
and an unwillingness to keep commitments that were made to our veterans
just 2 years ago. And I am deeply concerned about that. We told them
that they had to be part of the tobacco suit to recover costs so that
they could treat tobacco-related illnesses. Now we are saying they
cannot do that. It does not make any sense.
We know that the VA spends $4 billion annually on treating tobacco-
related illnesses, the Defense Department spends $1.6 billion. If we
allow them to continue to be a part of the suit, under the Medical Care
Recovery Act, any recovery of costs will be returned back to them so
that our veterans can be cared for. And this is tens of billions of
dollars.
In addition to that, there are implications for the Medicare Trust
Fund that are very important. Medicare spends $20.5 billion a year on
tobacco-related illnesses for our older Americans, seniors, disabled.
Under the suit, the Medicare Secondary Payor Provisions, any recovery
of these costs would go right back to Medicare; and if the lawsuit is
funded and successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of
the Medicare Trust Fund, continue health care for older Americans and
the disabled for years into the future, and, most importantly, allow us
to fund a prescription drug benefit.
I have been deeply involved in this issue. For the last year, I have
had a hotline set up in the State of Michigan asking people to share
their stories of situations where they are struggling to pay the costs
of prescription drugs. I have been deluged with letters and phone
calls, people sitting down every night at the table, do I get my food?
do I pay my electric bill? or do I get my medications?
If we allow this lawsuit to go forward, we can do something about
that. If we allow these funds to be transferred to support this effort,
we can hold an industry accountable that needs to be held accountable
and we can make sure that our veterans have the commitment kept to them
that we made 2 years ago to support their efforts to increase dollars
available for veterans' health care as a part of this lawsuit.
It is time to stop protecting the tobacco companies in this House of
Representatives, and it is time to start keeping our word to our
veterans.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment. The
legislation that we are considering right now that the gentleman in
California (Mr. Waxman) and others seek to amend should have, in fact,
some help from the Government Printing Office so that the package
around this legislation has a warning label that states, ``Warning:
this legislation may be hazardous to your health and the health of
every American who has a family member who smokes.''
Part of me, Mr. Chairman, cannot believe that we are actually on the
floor engaged in a debate about whether or not the tobacco companies
should be granted immunity against Federal lawsuits. And then part of
me realizes that I should not be surprised at all.
Two years ago, the tobacco companies came before the Committee on
Commerce and swore that the proposed settlement worked out with the
State did not contain immunity for their industry. The CEOs claimed
that they wanted to work with us, that it was the dawn of a new era.
And yet, at the same time, they hired a public relations firm to
develop a cynical $20 million ad campaign to, quote, create the basis
for an exit strategy, ideally, that the industry made a legitimate
offer and that the politicians played politics and made a mess out of
it.
Well, their cynical ploy worked. Congress killed comprehensive
tobacco legislation after the industry poured millions of dollars into
the Republican campaign coffers. Well, Mr. Chairman, they get what they
pay for. No comprehensive tobacco legislation. And now let us stop the
Justice Department from suing to get back some money for the American
taxpayers.
Under the underlying bill that we are debating today, a rider stuck
to it will de-fund the tobacco litigation that the Department of
Justice has initiated on behalf of the Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Defense and Health and Human Services. In fact, the language in
this bill states, in the most direct terms, that no money budgeted for
litigation support may be used for the purposes of supporting
litigation against tobacco companies.
This is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Government spends $20
billion annually on Medicare related to tobacco-induced illness costs.
The same thing is true for the VA. The same thing is true for Indian
services. All the way down the line.
Now, what a message that this bill sends. It says, no day in court
for our seniors who rely on Medicare, no day in court for our veterans,
no day in court for our men and women in uniform, no day in court for
Native Americans, no day in court for the millions upon millions of
Americans ravaged by tobacco-related illnesses.
It is bad enough that the 1997 balanced budget amendment cut so much
money out of Medicare, but it compounds the crime immeasurably to then
say that the Federal Government cannot sue to collect money from the
tobacco industry that can be used for the health care of these ordinary
Americans.
Four hundred, thirty thousand Americans die each year from tobacco-
related deaths. Four hundred, thirty thousand Americans die each year.
One in five deaths in the United States are related to tobacco-related
illnesses. Three thousand kids every single day in the United States
take up smoking. Three thousand a day. One thousand of them are going
to die from a tobacco-related illness.
The veterans who 30 and 40 and 50 years ago were given packs of
cigarettes, they were given, basically, a one-in-three chance of dying
from the addiction that would be caused by that free pack of cigarettes
which was handed to them. We owe these veterans and we owe all who have
suffered from tobacco-related illnesses the right to be able to go to
court, the right to be able to say to those who were the primary cause
of illness in our society that they must pay those families and the
Federal Government for what they have done.
We are at the dawn of a new century. One in three babies born in the
United States today has a chance of living to the age of 100. We, we
who hold out so much promise for this country, have it within our power
to do something to ensure that there is, without question, the
strongest possible disincentive created for the tobacco industry doing
in the 21st century what it did in the 20th century to the health of
our veterans.
Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138,
noes 243, not voting 53, as follows:
[Roll No. 292]
AYES--138
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
[[Page H4640]]
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rangel
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--243
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Costello
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Foley
Forbes
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--53
Bachus
Bilbray
Brown (FL)
Burton
Campbell
Cannon
Coburn
Cook
Cooksey
DeLay
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Ewing
Fattah
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Gephardt
Gilman
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hayes
Hooley
Hunter
Jenkins
Kasich
Kingston
Klink
Largent
Lazio
Leach
Lofgren
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Meeks (NY)
Murtha
Myrick
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Pelosi
Quinn
Rogan
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Shays
Shuster
Vento
{time} 1859
Messrs. Shows, LaHood, McInnis and Bentsen changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent from the vote
earlier this evening. Had I been here, I would have voted against the
motion to rise--rollcall vote 292.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
{time} 1900
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Waxman-Hansen-Meehan amendment. Tobacco use is responsible for 430,000
premature deaths each year. Smoking kills by causing chronic lung
disease, coronary heart disease and stroke, as well as cancer of the
lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth and bladder.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United
States, Mr. Chairman. It causes one out of every five deaths. In fact,
tobacco use causes twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol,
motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Tobacco causes
twice the number of deaths of all of those diseases and accidents
combined. If current trends continue, an estimated 25 million Americans
who are alive today will die prematurely from smoke-related illnesses,
including an estimated 5 million children.
Tobacco-related illnesses cost the Federal taxpayer approximately $25
billion a year, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid.
To have a provision that prohibits the Veterans Administration from
transferring funds to the Justice Department to support litigation
against the tobacco companies is wrong, and I would hope this Congress
would be able to stand up and say, no, we want to be able to have some
repayment for the diseases and illness that our veterans have been
afflicted by.
The Medicare program pays approximately $20.5 billion annually to
treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays in
excess of $1 billion per year. The Department of Defense pays $1.6
billion per year. The Indian Health Services pays $300 million a year.
In addition, tobacco-related health costs the Medicaid program nearly
$17 billion a year, of which Federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion.
Overall public and private payments for tobacco-related care totaled
nearly $90 billion in 1997.
Mr. Chairman, to remove VA appropriations for the tobacco litigation
hurts our veterans. It is our duty to provide as many dollars as
possible for our vets, especially since our government encouraged
tobacco use and tobacco addiction by our young service personnel, not
only during World War II but during the Korean War.
Mr. Chairman, I am reading a book now about the Chosin Reservoirs and
the heroes of that Korean War, particularly the Chosin Reservoir, and
instance after instance, when the temperature, was well below zero,
oftentimes the only thing they had were cigarettes. Those cigarettes
were provided by our government.
Those Korean War veterans are up in years. We should be able to
provide for them to be treated in our VA hospitals, and, again, not
just by the dollars we appropriate, but by the dollars that we can
generate from litigation because of their addiction and the diseases
that they have because of that.
Again, this amendment is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans, and AMVETS; and I
think, Mr. Chairman, particularly this year, less than 2 weeks ago, we
talked about it at our Memorial Day services all over the country, in
recognizing our veterans' contribution that in this year, particularly,
since we are recognizing Korean War veterans that the Waxman-Hansen-
Meehan amendment should be adopted, and we should remove this
provision.
I would hope that no matter what appropriations bill we come to, that
we would not tie the hands of the Justice Department to say, no, we
need to have tobacco-related lawsuits. Again, it is not our decision
it, is up to the judges or the juries ultimately; but it would allow
for us to recoup that money to be able to again treat more veterans for
hopefully other illnesses that are not
[[Page H4641]]
tobacco related and thereby provide it back to the veterans' program
next year and the year after.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the Chair.
____________________