Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10369-H10393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4635, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up
the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 638, the conference report is considered as having been
read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
October 18, 2000, at page H10083.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of
Representatives the conference report on H.R. 4635, making fiscal year
2001 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. So that we can move as
quickly as possible, I will keep my comments brief.
This conference report was developed after difficult and somewhat
prolonged discussions with our counterparts in the Senate as well as
representatives of the administration.
While there are some parts of this bill that I frankly would like to
have done differently, it is in the aggregate, a very good bipartisan
bill that will serve the American people well.

[[Page H10370]]

Let me mention just a few highlights that illustrate this point. The
bill fully funds veterans' medical care, with a $1.355 billion increase
over last year's record level and provides increased 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 we can provide. Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are
fully funded, and we have included language to push the Department to
do a better, faster job getting these funds out of Washington to the
people who need them the most.
In addition, funds have been added to provide an additional 79,000
new housing vouchers.
Mr. Speaker, we have fully funded the Community Development Block
Grant entitlement programs and have fully funded all other HUD
programs.
AmeriCorps has been funded at $453.5 million, less than the budget
request, but a slight increase over the fiscal year 2000 funding level.
EPA's core operating programs have been fully funded while the
various State grant programs, which assist States in implementing the
Federal laws, have been more than fully funded.
The Clean Water State Revolving Program, gutted in the budget
request, has been restored to $1.35 billion, while State and local air
grants and section 319 non-point source pollution grants have been
increased significantly.
Perhaps most important, we have proposed over $172 million, an
increase of $57 million over last year's, for section 106 pollution
control grants. These grants offer the States the maximum flexibility
to deal with the difficult TMDL issues facing the States.
CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been provided $118
million dollars, an increase over last year's funding level because,
after a rocky start, this program is working very well and deserves our
support.
Mr. Speaker, 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.
National Science Foundation has received an increase of nearly $530
million over last year, putting them well over $4.4 billion, their
largest budget ever. There is proud bipartisan support for fully
funding the NSF.
Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of nearly $683
million. Their first substantial increase in several years.
Before I complete my comments, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important
to set the record straight with regard to language contained in the
Statement of Managers concerning the dredging issue. The Statement
contains a direction to EPA to take no action to initiate or order the
use of dredging, capping, or other invasive remedial technologies for
contaminated sediments until the report from the National Academy of
Sciences is completed and its findings properly considered by the
Agency.
The conferees have encouraged the National Academy of Sciences to
issue a final report by the end of this year, and the Agency should
promptly review that report and determine how to appropriately
incorporate its recommendations into their remedy selection process.
Mr. Speaker, this direction is similar to language that was contained
in the Statement of Managers for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 bills. I am
frankly disappointed that the EPA has apparently chosen to ignore this
direction in several cases during the past year.
The Agency appears to be relying on a misinterpretation of this
direction, one that allows any business-as-usual EPA decision that
dredging or capping is an appropriate remedy to qualify as an
exception.
In each year, starting with the 1999 bill, the conferees have
provided specific exceptions to this direction, primarily limited to
cases where a significant threat to public health requires urgent,
time-critical response. None of the dredging or capping projects
undertaken during this fiscal year meets this test, yet each poses
substantial risks to the environment of the kind under study by the
NAS. EPA is expected to correct this misinterpretation as it complies
with the direction in this bill's Statement of Managers.

The direction in this year's Statement of Managers does not apply to
cases where a final plan selecting dredging or other invasive remedial
technology has been adopted prior to October 1 of this year or, in
cases not requiring adoption of a final plan, where authorized
activities involving dredging or invasive remedial technologies are now
occurring.
In any such case, such as a pilot or a demonstration, review of the
NAS report and consideration of its findings would be required before
adoption of a final plan involving dredging, capping or other invasive
remedial activity.
Turning briefly to another issue. The conferees included language in
last year's Statement of Managers accompanying the conference report
regarding a proposed rule to implement new, affordable housing goals
for the housing government-sponsored entities, the GSEs: Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.
These goals are currently being finalized. I would like to reiterate
the direction of the fiscal year 2000 Statement of Managers which
encouraged HUD to craft a final rule that ensures regulatory parity for
all of the GSEs, including the present composition of their overall
portfolio and relative size of multifamily portfolio.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, a question has been raised regarding direction
of EPA in the Statement of Managers regarding the Agency's issuing of
new guidelines with respect to the TMDL program. This direction to the
Agency is simply intended to prevent EPA regions or headquarters from
issuing new rules or guidelines which are based on the new TMDL rule
which cannot by law be implemented before October 1, 2001. Other rules
or guidelines relative to the TMDL program which are not based on the
rule may still be issued by the Agency.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it would have been very difficult to
get this bill this far without the support and assistance of the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), my ranking member friend,
who brings a great deal of knowledge and foresight to this bill, and
the rest of this very hard-working subcommittee.
I truly appreciate all of these Members. I also wish to thank our
counterparts in the Senate, specifically, Senator Bond and Senator
Mikulski. They are both very tough negotiators but are also able to
come to fair and equitable agreements.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the forthright and I think
good-faith negotiations we had with the White House. There has been a
lot of skepticism between the legislative and executive branch over the
past number of years; but in my experience, I think they have always
been fair, tough, but willing to compromise on all of these issues. And
we would not have resolved these issues especially on the environment,
had they not given some ground. We had to give ground; they gave some
ground. But I think the conclusion is that this is a good, fair bill
that everybody can say they took something home.
Mr. Speaker, while we do not always agree on issues, every effort has
been made on both sides to continue this subcommittee's strong history
of bipartisan cooperation in crafting this bill. I truly appreciate the
help of each of these individuals and our close working relationship.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention the hard work of our
staffs, both personal staffs and appropriation committee staff; these
are professionals. Their goal is to provide us with the information and
the resources we need to craft a good bill to make sure that throughout
the negotiation that everybody is kept abreast of the changes, and
that, to the best of our ability, to the best of their ability, they
get the bill done on time, which requires mountains and mountains of
paperwork. So I sincerely thank them all again.
Mr. Speaker, that in a nutshell is the fiscal year 2001 VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies bill, which, as my colleagues know, has also been
joined in this process with the Energy and

[[Page H10371]]

Water bill; and I expect we will hear from the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard) and his ranking member.
This is a good bill. It is a fair bill, with solid policy direction
while remaining fiscally responsible. We are still $2.4 billion under
the President's request, which I think in the environment that we have
negotiated in is remarkable. We are informed that it will be supported
by the President when it arrives on his desk, and I strongly encourage
the support of this body in moving this measure forward to its
completion.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

[[Page H10372]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.001

[[Page H10373]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.002

[[Page H10374]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.003

[[Page H10375]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.004

[[Page H10376]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.005

[[Page H10377]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.006

[[Page H10378]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. I am
pleased to report that the report before us today represents a major
improvement over the bill that left the House with far better funding
levels. It was worked out through a lengthy and constructive process
involving both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. I
believe that the resulting conference report is worthy of the support
of this House, and we have been advised that the President will sign
it.
Let me briefly describe some of the highlights. Mr. Speaker. First,
the conference report provides the full $1.3 billion increase proposed
in the President's budget for veterans' health care. It also includes a
$30 million increase for VA medical and prosthetic research and a $10
million increase for grants for construction of State extended care
facilities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in the veterans area, I am also very glad to
report that we were able to remedy a long-standing injustice affecting
former residents of the Philippines who served with the U.S. Armed
Forces during World War II. Under current law, these Filipino veterans
receive just half the benefits paid to American veterans even if they
live in the United States as U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Under this conference report, these Filipino veterans living in this
country will receive the same benefits as other World War II veterans.
Science funding is strongly supported with a 14 percent increase for
the National Science Foundation.
For NASA, the conference report includes a 5 percent funding
increase, providing $250 million above the President's budget request.
Within the HUD budget, we provide the full amount needed to renew all
expiring section 8 housing contracts so that no one loses their housing
assistance under this program, and the agreement also provides
increases for several other high priority housing programs, including a
13 percent increase for home grants to States and local governments for
affordable housing development, a 4 percent increase in CDBG formula
grants and a 9 percent increase for housing for the elderly and
disabled and a 10 percent increase for homeless assistance grants.

{time} 1315

While on the subject of assistance for those in acute need, I should
also mention the $30 million increase in funding provided for FEMA's
emergency food and shelter program, a very efficient program that
relies on private, charitable organizations to get help to where it is
most needed.
The conference report also funds another 79,000 new Section 8 housing
assistance vouchers to help make a reduction in unmet needs for housing
assistance. This is 41,000 fewer new vouchers than sought by President
Clinton, but 19,000 more than were added last year. We look forward to
working with HUD to ensure full utilization of Section 8 vouchers.
The impressive commitment to housing programs in this bill, Mr.
Speaker, is a testament to the strong advocacy of HUD Secretary Andrew
Cuomo, who has worked tirelessly for those who benefit from these
housing programs.
The bill also includes generous funding for activities for the
Environmental Protection Agency. The $7.8 billion provided in the final
agreement represents a $664 million increase over the amount requested
by the President, and $395 million over last year. A total of $3.6
billion is provided for important clean water and sewer projects under
the State and territorial assistance grants program.
In addition to the funding provided, the conference report has
eliminated or significantly modified a number of environmental riders.
All of these changes have been accepted by the White House. As Members
know, the House bill did not provide any money for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, including the President's signature
AmeriCorps program. The final package which we present today provides
$464 million for the Corporation, $70 million below the budget request,
but an increase of $25 million over fiscal year 2000.
I should also note that this conference report is being used as a
vehicle to send back to the President the energy and water
appropriations bill, this time without the provision that led to the
veto. We are pleased to be able to be of assistance in bringing that
part of the appropriations process to a successful conclusion, and I
will defer to the leaders of that subcommittee for an explanation of
the details of the package being presented here today.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my sincere
appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his
leadership and cooperation in fashioning this conference report. He has
done a tremendous job. He has been a good friend throughout this
process, and very responsive to minority concerns. We appreciate that,
and thank him for his commitment to trying to do the right thing by all
of the important programs and agencies under our jurisdiction. It has
been a pleasure working with him and his hard-working staff, including
Frank Cushing, Tim Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Dena Baron, and Jennifer
Whitson, from the professional staff; and from the chairman's personal
staff, John Simmons and Ron Anderson.
Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the talented staff on this
side of the aisle, David Reich and Mike Stephens from the minority
appropriations office, and Lee Alman and Gavin Clingham from my
personal staff.
I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, especially the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), our ranking member on the full committee, for all of his
outstanding assistance and support throughout this process. He is a
tireless leader of the Committee on Appropriations on our side of the
aisle, and he has been extremely active in marking up this bill and
throughout the process.
Finally, in closing, Mr. Speaker, we have four very capable, hard-
working Democratic Members on this subcommittee: the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Each of these Members have spent many hours working on this bill. It
bears their input in so many places, and I am extremely appreciative
for the contribution that each has made, and for their support
throughout the process.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent conference report.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development with whom, in this venture, we are
partners.
(Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report and the
conference agreement on H.R. 4635, and as my colleagues, both the
chairman and the ranking member, have mentioned, this conference
agreement will also enact the provisions of H.R. 5483, which I
introduced yesterday, and is a modified version of the fiscal year 2001
energy and water development appropriations act that was vetoed by the
President on October 7.
Members will recall that the President vetoed the bill over a
provision regarding the management of the Missouri River that he had
signed into law on four previous occasions. On October 11, the House
voted to override the President's veto, and I want to thank my
colleagues who supported on a bipartisan basis that override vote.

[[Page H10379]]

Unfortunately, the Senate did not believe it could override the
votes. Either they did not have the vote or they elected not to take it
up. Therefore, in order to move the process forward and to get this
conference report passed, we have removed the provision that the
President objected to regarding the Missouri River.
In cooperation with the Senate, we made a few other modest and minor
changes in the bill, but I wish to assure my colleagues that we did not
reduce or delete funding for any programs or projects that were
included in the conference agreement that was previously agreed to and
passed on the floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this table, which outlines the
various provisions of the energy and water development bill.
The table referred to is as follows:

[[Page H10380]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.007

[[Page H10381]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19OC00.008

[[Page H10382]]

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the ranking member,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his help in putting
these changes together.
I express my appreciation to the leadership of the House, and
particularly of the Committee on Appropriations that has crafted this
joint effort to join these two conference reports together, so we can
move the process forward. I will ask all of my colleagues to support
this conference report.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for two purposes. The first is to add my voice to
that of the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and to
acknowledge to my colleagues that there is an agreement as far as the
changes that were made on energy and water. It obviously is now
included in part of the underlying legislation. I would ask for their
support.
The second point I would make is that I believe that the bill
relative to the Veterans Administration, Housing, Urban Development,
and Related Agencies also deserves our support, and will congratulate
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), as well as the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their work.
Again, I do urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy on a provision in
the conference agreement relating to the definition of ``urban county''
under Federal housing law.
As the chairman knows, the community development block grant, CDBG,
program's statutory provisions relating to the urban county
classification do not contemplate the form of consolidated city-county
government found in Duval County, Florida, which encompasses my city of
Jacksonville, where there is no unincorporated area.
A recent decision by the Bureau of the Census and subsequently by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has questioned the
status of Jacksonville/Duval County as an entitlement area.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this problem facing the city of
Jacksonville.
Mrs. FOWLER. My purpose for entering into this colloquy is to seek
clarification from the chairman about the effect of the provision
adopted by the Conference Committee to amend the definition of ``urban
county'' to address this problem facing Jacksonville.
Is it the chairman's understanding that section 217 of the conference
report addresses the concerns of the town of Baldwin, Jacksonville, and
the Beaches communities, by amending current law to classify
Jacksonville as an urban county, and that the language would preserve
the area's longstanding status as an entitlement area for CDBG grants,
while also allowing the town of Baldwin to elect to have its population
excluded from the entitlement area?
Mr. WALSH. Yes. I believe the language clarifies that Jacksonville/
Duval County meets the definition of an urban county under the statute,
as amended. HUD also agrees with this interpretation.
Mrs. FOWLER. I thank the chairman for his comments.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a hard-working member of the
subcommittee.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to express my
feelings about our subcommittee, our chairman, and our ranking member
and the staff, as well as the full committee.
This has been an exercise in good bipartisanship of working together
to reach a goal that will benefit the people of this country and
improve the quality of their lives, so this is an experience.
The conference report should be voted on positively by every Member
of this body. A great deal of work has gone into it, quite a bit of
negotiating, and that is what it should be in this body. I am happy to
see that the community development block grant program is funded at
$5.1 million, $157 million above the President's request, and $257
million more than last year.
This is a signal that this committee has looked at low-income and
moderate-income people to certainly help them to improve the quality of
their lives.
EPA also had an increase, $529 million for NSF, and $683 million for
NASA. I will not go into all of these details, Mr. Speaker, but the
Congress needs to realize I think that this is one of the few times
that the committee funded everything. All of the agencies and all of
the programs that merited their funding they did fund. We will not find
programs in this particular conference report for people who need it
and did not get it.
We could have more money in the conference report for Section 8
housing, but they did a good job of that under the circumstances.
One thing about the chairman and the ranking member, they are very
fair people, very fair. Once they promise us something in terms of
one's districts, in terms of the people, they come through with it. So
I am happy to see they put 79,000 new Section 8 vouchers. They did the
best they could, and I thank them for that.
I am particularly proud, Mr. Speaker, of what the committee did for
housing and seniors. That program represents a very dire need for
better housing. This conference report took this into consideration and
provided considerable new support for housing.
The conference agreement appropriated $996 million to develop housing
for the elderly and the disabled, $85 million more than last year. That
is a considerable rise or increase in this program. Capital grants for
construction, for rehab and acquisition for the elderly under the
section 202 program, the measure provides $779 million more than last
year.
I guess what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, this conference report
reflects a unanimous effort to aid people in this country, and I think
we should thank the committee.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
chairman for the tremendous work that he and the members of the
subcommittee have done this year in preparing the conference report for
the House consideration.
As many of our colleagues may know, the subcommittee's initial
allocation made the gentleman's task especially difficult this year,
but the conference report we are considering today is truly an
affirmation of the gentleman's commitment and this House's commitment
to our Nation's veterans, and I thank the gentleman for his work.

{time} 1330

As my colleagues know, the 11th District of North Carolina, which I
have the privilege to represent, has one of the largest numbers of
senior veterans in the country. My constituents have served the United
States in every war, and especially World War II to the Persian Gulf.
Many of them now are needing assistance from our veterans hospital.
They get their good assistance from the VA Medical Center at Oteen, but
we are experiencing a growing health problem among the veterans of the
Western North Carolina region. Alzheimer's disease is certainly
impacting our area.
The Asheville Center has proposed the creation of a unit devoted to
the diagnosis and treatment of dementia-related illness as part of the
fiscal year 2001 budget. This project has been included as a priority
by the network in its most recent planning submission to the Department
of Veterans Affairs. I

[[Page H10383]]

will be working with the Department to secure funds for the staffing
needs for the dementia unit in the upcoming year.
I want to bring the project to the attention of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh) and ask for the support of the subcommittee and
the House in making the much-needed project a reality for the senior
veterans of western North Carolina.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Taylor) for bringing the project to the subcommittee's attention.
I know that improving and expanding the Asheville VA Medical Center has
been the highest priority for him and the veterans of his district for
many, many years.
I am also aware that Alzheimer's disease and other dementia-related
illnesses are a growing problem for veterans in western North Carolina
and throughout the Nation. I would be happy to work with the gentleman
from North Carolina in bringing the important project to the
Department's attention and in helping the Asheville VA Medical Center
as it moves forward with it.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New York (Chairman Walsh) for his assistance.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report on H.R. 4635, the Fiscal Year 2001 Departments of Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies
Appropriations bill.
In particular, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member
for the work they did on fully funding the NASA budget as it relates to
the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle program, and
particularly with reference to the fact that the conference report
includes $3 million for the planning and design of the Bioastronautics
Project.
The bill will provide the initial funding for the construction of a
research facility located at the Johnson Space Center to examine the
health effects of microgravity on long-term space flight. It will be
undertaken with the Human Space Flight Program along with the National
Space and Biomedical Research Institute located at Baylor College of
Medicine in my district.
I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), ranking member, for
putting this in, as well as the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), vice-chairman of the
subcommittee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the VA-HUD
appropriations conference report. I want to thank the gentleman from
New York (Chairman Walsh) for his leadership, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his leadership, and the great work of the
staff in meeting the many priorities that we all want included in the
bill.
Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the bill increases funding for
veterans' medical care, as has been said earlier, by $1.35 billion over
last year's level for a total 2-year increase of $3 billion. This is
absolutely critical funding that will be used to provide our veterans
with nursing home care, treatment for serious mental illnesses,
prescription drugs, routine medical care, and other badly needed
services.
One way the money can be used next year will be to provide each of
the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks, or VISNs, with a higher
rate of reimbursement for treating veterans with the hepatitis C virus.
This may not be on everybody's radar screen, but the disabling disease
of the liver affects a large number of veterans, especially those of
the Vietnam era. The treatment for the disease is costing an average of
$15,000 a year for medications alone. Yet the VA only reimburses VISNs
at the low, basic-care rate of $3,200.
As a result of language contained in the conference report, this will
now change. At the Chair's insistence and my assistance and the
committee members, we are now directing the VA to reimburse the VISNs
for hepatitis C at the higher, complex-care rate of $42,000 per patient
being treated for the disease.
I particularly would like, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Vietnam Veterans
of America for their strong advocacy on the matter.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the conference
report provides additional funding for affordable housing for all
Americans, especially older Americans and disabled individuals under
section 202 and section 811.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking minority
member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the conference report.
I think that, after being lost in wonderland territory for over 8
months, that the committee has finally been allowed to be realistic in
terms of what our housing needs are, what our scientific research needs
are, and what some other basic needs are that are funded by the bill.
I also want to congratulate the members on the other subcommittee in
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for the work that they
have done. I must confess some disquiet in supporting that portion of
the conference report, not because I object to the work done by the
subcommittee, but because we are proceeding in a very strange way.
Because of that fact, we are in a situation where we are going to be
voting almost $900 million more than the President requested for that
bill without having any knowledge of how much we are going to be
allowed to provide for what I consider to be even more critical
programs such as education and health care.
We have been stymied here for months, frankly, over the resistance of
the majority party leadership to provide the same kind of financial
largesse for education that we are providing in the Energy and Water
bill for the Army Corps of Engineers or in some of the other bills that
have gone through the place.
I would simply say I congratulate everyone for the work they have
done on these bills. It is not their fault that the bills are being
considered in the context. I want to make that clear. But I do object
to having to vote for the kind of package without knowing what the
plans are in the end to meet what ought to be the number one priority
in the country, education.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
As the gentleman is aware, our New York State Department of Health
recently released its findings from its Cancer Surveillance Improvement
Initiative. That report disclosed that Rockland County in my area of
New York State and the East Side of Manhattan are among the highest
breast cancer incidence in the States.
Specifically, the report shows that a majority of these two areas are
characterized by elevated incidence and are 15 to 50 percent higher
than the State average for breast cancer incidence.
In response to this alarming finding, I have been working with the
gentlewoman from Manhattan, New York (Mrs. Maloney), to secure funding
from the EPA for the NYU School of Medicine to conduct an assessment to
determine if the observed excess incidence of breast cancer in Rockland
County and on the East Side of Manhattan are associated with air
pollution and electromagnetic radiation generated from local power
plants.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H10384]]

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) for the work that he has done on this important issue and
bringing it to the subcommittee's attention. I share his concern for
the findings in the New York State Department of Health's report, which
show the high incidence of breast cancer in Rockland County and also on
the East Side of Manhattan Island.
I want to assure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that I will
work with him and with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) to
find the best source of funding for the important research project in
next year's appropriations bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Walsh) for his support.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) for his efforts in working with me to secure the
funding for the project. I also want to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan), ranking member, for their commitment to work with us to
secure funding for this important project next year.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a hard-working member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Walsh) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the conference report. I want
to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and certainly the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, Frank
Cushing, the staff, all of the staff for their great work in bringing
about an outstanding conference report. None of this would have
happened without extraordinary work, a lot of hours. I know there have
been many long hours, so I salute all of them for that great amount of
effort and great contribution.
This conference report responsibly provides a $1.3 billion increase
for Veterans' Medical Health Care, a critical $30 million increase for
Veterans' Medical and Prosthetics Research and responsible increases in
the research-intensive agencies NASA and NSF. I am pleased that these
and other funding priorities are in this bill and will be signed into
law when this conference report lands on the President's desk.
The 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair bill produced under most difficult
circumstances. In fact, this 2001 Energy and Water spending bill, under
the stewardship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), has been attached to this
conference report. I am pleased that it, too, will be signed into law.
This package holds the line on spending in a prudent manner and allows
us to pay down the debt.
The gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted for
crafting this piece of legislation under those very difficult
circumstances, and I think he and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) have worked with our colleagues and certainly the colleagues
in the other body to forge a fiscally responsible bill in a bipartisan
spirit.
This has been an unusual process this year because the other body did
not consider the VA-HUD bill on the floor. Yet, it was negotiated in a
bipartisan way with the White House fully engaged, and I am aware of no
objections to this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report is the fruit of all their labors,
and I urge its adoption.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for his thorough and responsible work, and let him know that I
appreciate his assistance over the past months to address an important
and divisive issue in my congressional district; that is, our national
policy on contaminated sediments and specifically EPA's policies on
contaminated sediments in the Hudson River.
At this point, EPA is poised to propose a massive environmental
dredging project that would drastically affect both the ecology of the
Upper Hudson River and the economies of those communities along its
banks. This is a decision that has many of those communities rightly
concerned about the long-term impacts of any such project and the
scientific basis for it.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, there are strong feelings on both sides of
this issue and that the common interest is to see that remediation of
the environmental damage to this river is accomplished. What we need at
this point is to mitigate the contention and let sound science direct
the decision making, and I believe the statement of the managers at
this time will do that because it expressly directs the EPA to take no
action to initiate or order the use of dredging until the National
Academy of Science report has been completed and its findings have been
properly considered by the agency. These instructions and the statement
of managers are clear, and I expect the EPA to abide by the language.

{time} 1345

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's earlier statements to
clarify the intent of the language in the Statement of Managers, which
is similar to language included in this year's spending bill, and also
for the past 2 years. As in past years, exceptions have been made for
voluntary agreements and urgent cases.
The NAS will soon deliver a comprehensive report on the risks
associated with various methods of addressing contaminated sediments,
including: dredging, capping, source control, natural recovery, and
disposal of contaminated sediments. I want to point out that this
information by the NAS will be really the first time that other
alternatives to dredging have been seriously considered.
On behalf of the constituents of the 22nd Congressional District, I
want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for persevering
and staying with us on this, because we need to ensure public
confidence, and I want to thank him again for his earlier comments
which do clarify.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to engage in a brief colloquy with the
fine chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh).
I note in the conference report there are two line items through EPA
which will help improve the environmental quality of the Kalamazoo
River Watershed in southwestern Michigan. One such provision is
directed to Western Michigan University's Environmental Research
Institute; the other is directed to Calhoun County, Michigan.
I would like to clarify that the line item with respect to Calhoun
County would be solely administered through Western Michigan
University's Environmental Research Institute, provided that such funds
are used to provide environmental quality for that portion of the
Kalamazoo Watershed which is in Calhoun County, Michigan. By doing
this, we will help ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of
effort in this regard.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I would simply advise the gentleman that I
agree with him.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his agreement.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, can you advise us as to how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Walsh) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriation bill.

[[Page H10385]]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this has been a challenging task to
assemble this comprehensive legislation; and it is a testament to the
tireless efforts of the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), as well as
the staff of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
I am pleased that there is a provision in this bill that was authored
by our colleague from Georgia and myself which will help and assist our
communities across this country by delaying the designation of
nonattainment by EPA until such time as the Supreme Court rules or
until June 15 of 2001, whichever comes first.
In the interim, though, Mr. Speaker, the EPA and State environmental
divisions will also continue to monitor our air, the air quality for
communities, so that they can be assured that they know what is in
their air. But this legislation, too, will ensure that reason and
common sense is adhered to as we all work towards the common goal of
improving our Nation's air quality.
I appreciate the fact that the White House did give us a consensus on
this and worked with us too, and I look forward to further working with
these gentlemen in subcommittee in their efforts.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of
this VA-HUD conference report, and I want to commend our colleague and
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their diligence. Their leadership has
produced a conference report that is not only fiscally sound but one
that provides for our Nation's veterans, for housing, and for
environmental programs with the funding and tools needed to meet our
important needs.
Specifically, this conference report provides over $107 billion in
new budget authority for our veterans' benefits, for housing programs,
and for those agencies dealing with science, space and the environment.
While the bill is higher than the House-approved bill, it is
nevertheless $2.3 billion less than the President's request. More
importantly, though, this report includes $5.2 billion for debt
reduction.
In addition, this conference report includes the provisions of H.R.
1594, the Filipino Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, which will permit
the payment of full service-connected disability compensation to our
Filipino veterans residing in the United States who are citizens, or
who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence; provides
comprehensive health care services at VA health centers; and permits
the VA outpatient clinic in the Philippines to provide Filipino
veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces with comprehensive health care.
It is gratifying that the fiscal year 2001 energy and water
conference report, which the House previously approved, has been
included in this measure and which includes several important flood
control projects in my district, including the Ramapo/Mahwah and the
Saw Mill River projects at Elmsford.
Accordingly, I urge all our colleagues to fully support this
important conference report.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the leadership for giving us the opportunity to present this bill
before the House today. I think, as we have said, it is a good bill and
it is a bipartisan bill. I think we have worked well together all the
way along. I think the House really did a great job.
That is not to denigrate the Senate, but I think we clearly knew what
our challenge was and we set out to do it. We worked together, and I
think we can all be proud of this product.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4635, particularly title V
dealing with Filipino veterans benefits improvements. I commend Mr.
Filner and Mr. Gilman for their tireless efforts on this issue and
their leadership in this long struggle for Filipino veterans equity.
H.R. 4635 will correct some of the injustices inflicted on the
Filipino soldiers who fought courageously under U.S. command during
World War II. It will provide full compensation for service related
disabilities for Filipino veterans who are living permanently and
legally in the United States. These veterans would receive the full
dollar amount in benefits, rather than the ``peso-rate standard'' of 50
cents to the dollar. Filipino veterans deserve full compensation like
all other U.S. veterans. Today, there are about 17,000 Filipino
veterans who are U.S. citizens, and about 1,250 of these currently
receive Veterans Affairs compensation for service-connected
disabilities. Full compensation would be a long awaited victory for
them.
In addition, H.R. 4635 will expand health services to those already
receiving compensation for service connected disabilities in the U.S.
so that they can be seen for all medical care. To the fullest extent
possible, veterans residing in the Philippines who enlisted in the U.S.
Armed Forces would be able benefit from this expansion of health
services as well.
The remedy of full compensation is long overdue. Filipino veterans
have been waiting over 50 years to receive such benefits, after the
Rescission Act of 1946 denied them promised benefits. Now they are in
their late 70s and 80s and continue to fight for the equity that they
rightfully deserve.
In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called and ordered all
organized military forces of the Philippine government into the service
of the U.S. Armed Forces under the United States Army Forces in the Far
East. Under U.S. command, the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the
Special Philippine Scouts fought valiantly alongside American soldiers.
They participated in some of the toughest battles of World War II and
helped to achieve peace in the Pacific.
Unfortunately, after the war's end, these efforts were not justly
recognized. The Recission Act of 1946 deemed Filipino military service
as non-active, thereby denying them the rights, privileges and benefits
which every U.S. military serviceman is entitled to. H.R. 4635, by
providing full compensation for service related disabilities in the
full dollar amount, will bring these veterans one step closer to
equity.
Filipino veterans have been fighting many years for equity. In 1990,
they were allowed eligibility for citizenship in the U.S., and in 1999,
Public Law 106-69 enabled Filipino American veterans of WWII to return
to the Philippines and maintain 75 percent of their benefits, including
Supplemental Security Income. President Clinton issued a memorandum
this past July that directed the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
complete a study by October 31, 2000, of Filipino veterans and to
identify options available for addressing those needs.
Therefore, I urge your support for the advancement of Filipino
veterans equity. Filipino veterans fought fearlessly to achieve peace
more than 50 years ago amidst the turnoil of World War II. Filipino
soldiers also fought valiantly alongside American soldiers, under the
command of the United States of America. They were crucial to our
nation's war efforts in the Pacific. For this they deserve benefits
equal to every other veteran who fought under the United States flag. I
urge my colleagues to continue this fight for equity and support H.R.
4635 so that Filipino veterans will receive some of the benefits that
are long overdue.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on
the VA/HUD/Energy and Water Appropriations Act. During the 106th
Congress, the Administration and Congress have significantly increased
appropriations for veterans' health care. For fiscal year 2000, the
administration requested a $1 billion increase in appropriations for
veterans' health care and Congress eventually approved a $1.7 billion
increase. This increase recognized the adverse consequences of four
consecutive years of flat-line budgets for the Department of Veterans
Affairs medical care system. The only increase in funding had come from
a stream of non-appropriated revenues including veterans' health
insurance and copayments, sharing agreements and other funds--the
increase in appropriations also signaled the failure to provide
adequate funding for veterans' health care from non-appropriated
sources. For a number of reasons--some beyond its control--VA has not
been successful obtaining the full amount of these projected revenues.
For fiscal year 2001, the administration requested a $1.35 billion
increase in appropriations for veterans' health care--a record
administration increase in VA health care appropriations. While we have
made some real progress in funding our veterans' health care, we must
continue this progress in the future as VA health care is not immune to
rising costs of providing health care, particularly pharmaceutical
costs.
I do want to address one concern about a modification made to the
House bill in the conference agreement. In this regard, I want to

[[Page H10386]]

thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, and the gentleman from
West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan for addressing concerns which the chairman
of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Bob Stump, and I noted in our
views and estimates submitted to the Budget Committee and which I later
shared with them in testimony to the subcommittee. In particular, we
expressed concern about a legislative proposal to return to the U.S.
Treasury revenues anticipated from new resources collected using
authorities in the Veterans Millennium Health and Benefits Act. I
appreciate the subcommittee's rejection of that legislative proposal.
When this Congress passed the millennium bill, it was clearly
understood that its promise lay in allowing new funding streams,
primarily from veterans' increased cost sharing, to augment VA's long-
term care program. This proposal would, thus, compromise VA's funding
for new long-term care programs.
The House initially rejected a proposal by the administration to
return to the U.S. Treasury revenues anticipated from these new
resource collection authorities. As veterans age, finding acceptable
long-term care alternatives grows increasingly important to ensuring
their health. Without expanding these options, VA will be forced to
reduce others services it offers veterans. In conference, however,
these funds were made subject to appropriation--I am hopeful that this
will not mean that any additional revenues collected will be used to
offset any program growth these funds might have allowed. This would
constitute a real breech in the compact Congress has made with our
veterans to use additional funds from their increased copayments for VA
programs.
On the floor, the House added $30 million to VA's Grants for
Construction of State Extended Care Facilities, bringing the total
House request to $90 million. I am pleased the Senate has also seen fit
to add funds to the Grants for Construction of State Extended Care
account. Additional funds will ensure a smooth transition from VA's
current funding methodology to an improved formula that will allow more
renovation projects to be considered and ensure that veterans' needs
are addressed. It will allow all of the ``grandfathered'' projects to
be addressed and, thus, allow VA to determine its new priorities with a
clean slate.
VA Research was also in need of additional resources. While other
federal research programs have recognized significant gains in recent
years, VA research has been frozen in the last four budgets. The
ranking member of the VA Committee's Health Subcommittee, Mr.
Gutierrez, recommended an additional $30 million for VA Research for FY
2001 in an amendment that was accepted on the House floor. These funds
would allow the program to accommodate inflation and fund additional
areas of interest. I understand the Senate's bill also supports this
level of funding for medical research and I'm pleased that this level
of funding was approved by the Conferees.
I am extremely pleased to note both House's strong support for new
centers of excellence in the treatment and research of motor-neuron
diseases, such as Parkinson's Disease. In fact, VA has recently shared
with me an excellent proposal for six new Parkinson's centers. I had an
opportunity to visit the VA Centers' prototype in San Francisco. VA is
accomplishing great things there and I am pleased that this experience
may soon be duplicated to the benefit of veterans in five additional
sites around the country. I also believe VA would be well served by
developing centers of excellence in Multiple Sclerosis as referenced in
both of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee reports.
I am pleased that the resources, as outlined by the Conference
Agreement, will allow funds for the successful operation of all VA
programs. VA must continue to allow for responsible growth in each
year's budget. Just like other health care providers, VA has
inflationary costs beyond this control. In recent years, as VA has
shifted to outpatient care that increasingly relies upon
pharmaceuticals to manage health care conditions, VA's prescription
drug costs have increased at rates from 15-25% annually. Likewise, the
cost of medical supplies and capital equipment continue to increase at
rates above general inflation. Employee payraises must be accommodated.
VA nurses, some of whom have gone without any payraise for several
years, were long overdue for increases in pay. Fortunately, Congress
has just approved a bill that will correct this problem, but we must
also give VA the ability to use the new pay rates we have authorized by
providing needed resources to recruit and retain highly qualified
health care providers in an era of fierce competition for their skills.
Just like other health care providers, VA also has significantly
transformed the way it does business in the past few years. It has
closed many beds, even while adding significantly to its patient
workload. I am convinced the organization is committed to reforms that
will bring about greater efficiencies. Even with these changes,
however, it is impossible for VA to meet all of its challenges without
a healthy annual increase in its budget.
The VA health care system must also contend with the significant
challenge of Hepatitis C that is disproportionately affecting its
users. The San Francisco VA Medical Center estimated that, including
the costs of screening for veterans with negative tests and candidates
who are not well-suited to treatment, it costs up to $100,000 for each
``cure'' (or each case in which viral counts are reduced to untraceable
amounts). Last fall, the Inspector General indicated that in each of
the eight facilities it visited, employees believed addressing
Hepatitis C would require between two and seven dedicated employees.
This constitutes an enormous new challenge for VA. In addition to this
new epidemic, VA must continue to effectively manage the many other
chronic conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, AIDS, and pulmonary
disorders that its veteran patients have in higher proportions than the
general population. VA health care must also restore some of the
capacity it has reduced under financial duress for seriously mentally
ill veterans.
Congress and veterans have grown increasingly concerned with waiting
times--the time that it takes VA to offer veterans its next-available
appointment. Long waiting times have been a clear indication to many
Members of Congress that there has been significant stress on the
system. In addition to requesting additional funding for VA health care
for this fiscal year, the Administration now has many initiatives
underway to address the problems. I have requested that the General
Accounting Office study the issue and report to me about the problems
with data that hamper VA's ability to understand waiting times and
initiatives, including ``best practices'', underway to address waiting
times.
We also know that certain services and regions have been drastically
affected by VA's Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation model. A few of
the 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks have had to request budget
supplements--even with the significant increase we provided last year--
and even with optimistic future funding scenarios, expect significant
funding shortfalls in the future. The network that serves many veterans
in my district in Western Illinois, is one example. I know the belt-
tightening that has occurred throughout Nebraska, Iowa, and the rest of
the areas that comprise that network. They have actually closed some
inpatient facilities and now contract for care from local community
facilities. This is a practice that as few as 10 years ago would have
been considered untenable. Even if it closes most of the remaining
medical centers in the network, the network will continue to have
fiscal obligations that outstrip its projected budgets. I recently
requested the General Accounting Office to look at allocations to
determine if some regions are more adversely impacted than others under
the new methodology.
I have also been concerned that the new funding methodology has
adversely impacted mental health and other programs that address
chronic disease or disability. In moving toward a community and
outpatient-focused approach, VA has closed literally thousands of
psychiatric inpatient beds--about 40% of the beds it operated five
years ago. I remain concerned that VA has not replaced the beds with
meaningful programs in the community designed to help the veterans that
have been displaced from inpatient programs.
I understand that, as a result of its commitment to moving forward on
VA's Capital Assets Restructuring for Enhanced Services (CARES)
initiative, there is a de facto moratorium on major construction for
VA's health care system. It is important to realize, however, that even
as VA considers changing the mission of its facilities or even closing
some of its buildings, there is still an aging health care
infrastructure to maintain. On top of the needs for modification to
ensure the safety of the patients and staff who use its buildings, a
moratorium could impede VA's ability to perform its missions. Many of
the buildings from which VA operates are aging and need significant
renovations. There are also needs for significant modifications in
order to address new missions and to accommodate new technology. I am
concerned that any moratorium will compromise VA's ability to make
adjustments to its instrastructure to accomplish its goals in an
evolving health care environment. VA cannot stand still and also have
the modern facilities that are critical to higher quality, more timely
patient care and more efficient use of limited resources.
These continuing concerns set the stage for the debates we will soon
have about the fiscal year 2002 budget. Still, it is clear from the
fiscal year 2001 budget submission that communication between Congress
and the Administration has greatly improved and that this has
translated into a strong budget request for this year--the strongest an
Administration has ever made. I am also appreciative that Congress has
seen fit to address shortfalls that could have undermined VA's ability
to be the

[[Page H10387]]

type of health care provider we want for our veterans.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I rise today to discuss the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 2001. As the distinguished Chairman
knows, I authored report language to accompany H.R. 4733 that
recommended the Department of Energy process Uranium-233 stored in
Building 3019 at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Tennessee, in a
manner that would retain and make available alpha-emitting isotopes for
the development of a promising and innovative cancer therapy known as
Alpha Particle Immunotherapy.
Researchers at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York
view this therapy as a potential breakthrough treatment for numerous
types of cancer, including acute myelogenous leukemia, non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancer. This innovative
approach to treat cancer is highly valuable because of its ability to
target cancer cells and its unique potency in killing them. In
addition, API treats the cancer without causing some of the negative
side effects associated with treatment, such as nausea, hair loss and
general malaise.
I am concerned by reports that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is
unable to produce the medical isotopes needed to support the
development of this extremely promising cancer therapy. We simply must
execute this project for its potential to save lives and save money for
the U.S. taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to take a moment to emphasize my intent in
offering this language. Briefly, the intent of this language is to
permit the Department of Energy to use the $15 million it has projected
are needed for Building 3019 surveillance and maintenance costs to
stabilize, dispose and deactivate all of the excess Uranium-233 in
Building 3019 to enable the beneficial use of Uranium-233 for this
breakthrough cancer treatment. In doing so, it is my intent that the
Department of Energy would spend the $15 million to conduct routine
surveillance and maintenance to control the stored material safely
while at the same time blending-down the Uranium-233 to a radioactivity
that eliminates safety and safeguards concerns, and extracting the
radioactive isotope for cancer treatments. This approach would enable
the Department of Energy to not only eliminate the nuclear criticality
and vulnerability concerns at the Oak Ridge site, but would also
provide the Department with the opportunity to take a leadership role
in the worldwide effort to cure cancer. Again, I would like to point
out that all of this could be accomplished within the existing DOE
Building 3019 budget projections and potentially could provide life-
cycle cost savings to the DOE and the American taxpayers of over $200
million.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Highly Enriched Uranium Vulnerability
Assessment Report identified Building 3019 as one of the ten most
hazardous facilities within the DOE complex. This risk increases as
long as no action is taken to place the Uranium-233 in stabilized form.
The language that I drafted attempts to correct this situation by
enabling the Department of Energy through private sector stabilization,
disposition and deactivation to expeditiously eliminate the concerns at
the Oak Ridge site, while enhancing the accessibility of the Lab.
This entire opportunity holds the potential to turn ``swords in
plowshares'' by reindustrializing this nuclear liability into a
humanitarian use. In addition, it offers significant national benefits,
not only the primary ones to cancer patients and their families, but
also benefits to the DOE and the Oak Ridge area as it would: Accelerate
the disposition of this special nuclear material, reducing the long-
term costs associated with its surveillance and maintenance; Begin
addressing the State of Tennessee's concerns regarding the current U-
233 storage facility, which has been classified as one of the ten most
hazardous facilities within the DOE complex; and Broaden the scope of
reindustrialization initiatives in Oak Ridge, potentially creating
manufacturing and research jobs.
Mr. Speaker, we owe it to the people of America and the world,
particularly those suffering from cancer, to do whatever we can do to
enable this breakthrough cancer treatment to move forward as quickly as
possible. This concludes my remarks. I thank you again for allowing me
to clarify the intent of this very important provision.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, while I support the hard work of House
conferees in crafting this conference report I want to express concern
that an amendment I had offered to H.R. 4465 was dropped in conference.
The amendment expressed concern about the state of NASA's research
and analysis programs (R&A). Through peer reviewed grants to individual
scientists, R&A provides the basic research which is the seed corn for
space exploration missions. While these activities often are not
glamorous, and do not make for pretty images on CNN, they are essential
for increasing the return to taxpayers from more visible and expensive
flight programs. Unfortunately, NASA been underfunding this activity.
Despite projected overall increases in the NASA budget in the outyears,
R&A is expected to be flat funded at best, and may in fact suffer
further funding reductions.
In 1998, the National Research Council Report ``Supporting Research
and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs'' offered significant new
findings and important recommendations for strengthening this activity
as well as Data Analysis (DA) programs. Six explicit recommendations
were offered, but despite their clear potential for improving the
effectiveness of flight programs, NASA has implemented few if any
changes. My amendment simply required a review of the status in
implementing the recommendations in the report, barriers to
implementation and specific guidance on optimal funding levels. The
provision was considered non-controversial by the full Appropriations
Committee and was adopted by voice vote.
While Members of Congress regarded this as a common sense, good
government amendment, NASA objected most strenuously to being held to
the basic recommendations of the Space Studies Board. In an effort to
preempt my language, NASA requested an interim assessment of Research
and Data Analysis in the Office of Space Science. This September 22,
2000 letter report from the Space Studies Board (SSB), which I am
including for the record, hardly notes enthusiastic support for the
1998 recommendations. It suggests that while NASA has been effective in
talking about change in this area, little action has been seen to date.
As the letter report notes: ``While the board supports the steps
noted above, there are still two concerns to be addressed. First, many
of the OSS responses to the 1998 report's recommendations are planned
rather than ongoing activities, and so any assessment of their
effectiveness must await their implementation. Second, there are areas
where the plans appear to be incomplete or where the attention being
given may be inadequate.'' The board concludes by noting that ``it
cannot, however, be confident that these recommendations will be met
until an explicit implementation plan is available.''
I note that this was an ``interim'' report for only one of NASA's
three science offices, and that more comprehensive analysis is
required. I expect that NASA will continue to work with interested
Members of Congress and the SSB to ensure that these sound
recommendations are actually implemented. The fact that this amendment
was dropped from the final conference report should in no way be seen
as a diminution of Congressional interest in this issue. I can assure
the agency that unless concrete steps to towards implementation are
undertaken, further Congressional action is likely. Research and
analysis activities are critically important and the SSB has made sound
recommendations for improvement which should be heeded.
I would also like to use this opportunity to bring to Members'
attention, and that of VA policy, program and budget officials, the
legislative history and background surrounding the inclusion of
$5,000,000 for the Joslin Vision Network (JVN), developed by the Joslin
Diabetes Center. The Conference Agreement of $5,000,000 for this effort
is based on the following components.
Dr. Sven Bursell of Joslin Diabetes Center presented Outside Witness
testimoney to the VA/HUD Subcommittee describing a $5 million plan for
the JVN to be deployed within the VA beyond the FY 2000 level, and for
the refinement of the JVN system toward a Windows NT platform and a
seamless interface with VA Medical Care software. Dr. Bursell outlined
the two major elements of the $5,000,000 plan as follows: $3 million
would be used by the VA and Joslin to expand to additional sites with
the most need for portable advanced detection and begin to train
personnel and equip additional VA facilities to utilize the JVN
technology; and $2 million would be provided to the Joslin Diabetes
Center to complete the refinement of the original, prototype system
(equipment and software) to the point that the VA can purchase and
utilize advanced detection equipment and reading center technology.
Mr. Speaker, Congressman Sam Gejdenson and I testified together
before the VA/HUD Subcommittee on April 11, 2000, in support of the
Joslin Diabetes Center plan. Our bipartisan request for approval and
funding of the $5,000,000 Joslin Diabetes Center request was approved
in the Conference Agreement on H.R. 4635. Congressional intent
underlying this item is clear. The VA should endeavor to implement this
plan as expeditiously as possible in order to bring improved care to VA
patients suffering from diabetes.

Interim Assessment of Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Office of
Space Science

On September 22, 2000, Space Studies Board Chair John H.
McElroy sent the following letter to Dr. Edward J. Weiler,
associate administrator for NASA's Office of Space Science.

[[Page H10388]]

As you requested in your letter of June 16, 2000 (Appendix
A), the Space Studies Board (the Board, Appendix B) has
conducted a brief review of actions taken by the Office of
Space Science (OSS) that are relevant to recommendations in
the board's 1998 report Supporting Research and Data Analysis
in NASA's Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and
Synthesis. The statement of task for this review is provided
in Appendix C.
The Board conducted this assessment on a ambitious schedule
in accordance with your request for feedback by September
2000. The Board was provided with relatively little written
documentation of NASA's plans for improving the OSS R&DA
program.
The review was based, in part, on inputs received from
relevant standing committees of the Board--the Committee on
Solar and Space Physics, the Committee on Planetary and Lunar
Exploration, and the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics.
A major source of information for the review was a pair of
short papers provided to the Board on July 25, 2000, by Dr.
Guenter Riegler, director of the OSS Research Program
Management Division (Appendixes D and E). Dr. Riegler then
briefed the board's executive committee and standing
committee chairs at a meeting on August 16 at the National
Academies' study center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. At that
meeting, members of the Board reviewed and discussed the
information from NASA and the Board's discipline committees'
responses and assembled this consensus assessment. The board
concluded that the proposals that Dr. Riegler described for
responding to the 1998 report are appropriate; however, a
final assessment awaits action guided by a concrete
implementation plan.

general observations

The 1998 Space Studies board report analyzed the roles and
contributions of R&DA grants in the research programs of
NASA's three science offices, and it presented a set of
strategic and programmatic recommendations to enhance the
R&DA programs. The Board reaffirms the conclusions of the
1998 report: research and data analysis activities are
critical elements of a viable space science program. The
Board is aware of a number of actions within OSS that are
under way or planned that will strengthen the R&DA programs
and that will be entirely consistent with the recommendations
of the 1998 report. For example, Dr. Riegler described plans
to reallocate current budgets and to seek funds for new
projects that will provide selected increases in data
analysis funding at an overall rate of 8% per year. He also
reported on the OSS intent to provide explicitly for data
analysis funding in all new projects when they are initially
proposed. Further, Dr. Reigler described a regular process
of ``senior reviews'' of the research grants program that
would complement the senior reviews of operating
spacecraft mission programs and provide a mechanism to
accomplish a number of actions recommended by the Board in
the 1998 report.
While the Board supports the steps noted above, there are
still two concerns to be addressed. First, many of the OSS
responses to the 1998 report's recommendations are planned
rather than ongoing activities, and so any assessment of
their effectiveness must await their implementation. Second,
there are areas where the plans appear to be incomplete or
where the attention being given may be inadequate. In the
remainder of this report, the Board provides additional
comments on those areas by addressing each of the six major
recommendations in the 1998 report in order.

assessment of the oss response to the 1998 ssb recommendations

1. Principles for Strategic Planning

The first recommendation of the 1998 report addressed a
number of aspects of managing R&DA programs strategically. To
be able to do so requires, of course, a strategic plan for
the program as a whole and an approach that integrates
attention to R&DA into that plan. In its May 2000 review of
the OSS draft 2000 strategic plan, the Board indicated that
while many aspects of the draft were solidly grounded, the
document still lacked several important aspects of a
strategic plan, as follows:
Although the draft document is called ``The Space Science
Enterprise Strategic Plan,'' it lacks, in fact, some key
characteristics of a strategic plan. For example, the
document does not explicitly discuss how choices were or are
made in setting priorities, and it does not identify
priorities for missions or other program elements that are
presented in the plan. . . .
Regarding the integration of R&DA into that strategic plan,
the Board's May 2000 report said:
The OSS draft plan should reflect a clearer sense of the
priorities for R&DA, the linkages between R&DA and other
parts of the OSS program, and the overall importance of R&DA
in the space science enterprise. Finally, also needed is a
more explicit discussion of the OSS strategy for achieving
balance between flight mission development, supporting ground
and suborbital research, theory and modeling, and data
analysis. . . .
The Board is aware of OSS's plans to institute a new senior
review process for evaluating the research grants program
(Appendix D), probably on a triennial basis, to complement
the senior reviews for operating satellites. Together these
two reviews will go a long way toward responding to regular
evaluations of balance as recommended in the 1998 report.
What is apparently missing, however, is a process to
integrate these decisions and to look across the whole
program strategically. This integrating function is
particularly important for handling cases in which senior
reviews of operating missions and of the grants program might
arrive at different conclusions. The NASA Space Science
Advisory Committee may be a possible venue for integrating
the senior reviews and evaluating balance across OSS.

2. Innovation and Infrastructure

The second recommendation addressed the need to examine
stragically the requirements, priorities, and health of
research infrastructures at universities and NASA field
centers. This issue was also addressed in the Board's review
of the OSS draft strategic plan:
The OSS draft document says little about what
responsibility OSS assumes for universities. It notes the
intention to ``maintain essential technical capabilities at
the NASA centers,'' and although it recognizes the role of
scientists at universities in research and planning, and in
developing the next generation of space research
professionals, it is silent about intentions of OSS to
maintain essential capabilities at universities. . . .
Furthermore, a long-standing question within NASA has
concerned the extent to which universities should be
considered to be vendors, sources of members of the technical
workforce, integral partners, or some mix of those roles. The
OSS plan could be strengthened by more clearly recognizing
that the universities are elements of the fabric of space
science and that their capabilities also need to be nurtured.
Dr. Riegler called the Board's attention to plans within
the executive branch to strengthen government-university
partnerships, based on the ``Principles of the Federal
Partnership with Universities in Research'' laid out in the
National Science and Technology Council's report Renewing the
Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the
21st Century. He cited several proposed NASA initiatives to
increase university involvement in developing space hardware
and infrastructure. These plans, if implemented, will enhance
the research infrastructure in some areas. However, based on
the information provided by OSS, the Board concluded that a
more systematic assessment of research infrastructure along
the lines recommended in the 1998 report is still needed.

3. Management of the Research and Data Analysis Programs

The third recommendation focused on the need to assess the
distribution of grant sizes in each of NASA's science program
areas. NASA presented data regarding grant sizes in different
areas of the OSS research program as well as a description of
the logic and history of the differences in sizes among those
research areas. However, there does not appear to have been
any systematic assessment across the program. In addition,
the Board recognizes that a response to Recommendation 6 of
the 1998 report is required in order to conduct such an
assessment. Finally, the planned senior review of the
research grants program described by NASA could be an
appropriate vehicle for carrying out this systematic review.

4. Participation in the Research and Data Analysis Programs

The fourth recommendation emphasized the value in
preserving a mix of university and non-university
participation in technology, instrument, and facility
development. OSS did not provide the Board with any
information indicating that OSS has conducted or plans to
conduct a systematic evaluation of the mix of university
principal investigator awards and non-university funding for
technology, instrument, and facility development. The Board
notes that in assessing the mix of institutions involved in
technology development, NASA should also promote university-
industry-field center partnerships.

5. Creation of Intellectual Capital

The fifth recommendation addressed the use of training
grants as a way to ensure breadth in graduate education. NASA
indicated an intent to increase the number of (or introduce a
new element into) training grants in the university program;
however, no actions had been undertaken at the time of this
review. The Board is interested in seeing an implementation
plan for this initiative.

6. Accounting as a Management Tool in the Research and Data Analysis
Programs

The sixth recommendation addressed the need to establish a
uniform procedure for collecting data on R&DA funding and
funding trends for use as a management tool. This issue was
also raised in the Board's reports on technology development
in OSS and in the report Federal Funding of Astronomical
Research. NASA presented plans for acquiring the types of
data recommended in the 1998 report, and the Board views this
plan as a positive response. These plans would involve using
a single contractor to administer the proposal review process
as a means for collecting the data. If appropriate data are
collected (e.g., on trends with respect to discipline, class
of activity, and type of performing institution), they will
provide a useful management tool for assessing the balance
among elements and participants in the R&DA program. However,
these data on R&DA funding will be incomplete until

[[Page H10389]]

NASA implements full-cost accounting at the NASA field
centers. In addition, these data will be required before OSS
can respond appropriately to Recommendation 3 of the 1998
report.

concluding remarks

The Board believes that OSS's proposals for responding to
the recommendations of the 1998 report are moving in the
right direction. It cannot, however, be confident that these
recommendations will be met until an explicit implementation
plan is available. The Board is prepared to assist OSS in any
way it can.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of funding provided for
the Joslin Vision Network in H.R. 4635, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA/HUD
Appropriations Act.
I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Walsh, Ranking
Member Mr. Mollohan, and the House Conferees for the inclusion of
several items in the VA Medical Care account that will provide improved
detection and care for those in the VA patient population that suffer
from diabetes and the complications of diabetes.
Specifically, I would like to highlight the legislative history and
background surrounding the inclusion of $5,000,000 for the Joslin
Vision Network (JVN), developed by the Joslin Diabetes Center. The
Conference Agreement of $5,000,000 for this effort is based on the
following components.
Dr. Sven Bursell of Joslin Diabetes Center presented Outside Witness
testimony to the VA/HUD Subcommittee describing a $5 million plan for
the JVN to be deployed within the VA beyond the FY 2000 level, and for
the refinement of the JVN system toward a Windows NT platform and a
seamless interface with VA Medical Care software. Dr. Bursell outlined
the two major elements of the $5,000,000 plan as follows:
$3 million would be used by the VA and Joslin to expand to additional
sites with the most need for portable advanced detection and begin to
train personnel and equip additional VA facilities to utilize the JVN
technology; and
$2 million would be provided to the Joslin Diabetes Center to
complete the refinement of the original, prototype system (equipment
and software) to the point that the VA can purchase and utilize
advanced detection equipment and reading center technology.
Mr. Speaker, Congressman George Nethercutt and I testified before the
VA/HUD Subcommittee on April 11, 2000 in support of the Joslin Diabetes
Center plan. The VA should endeavor to implement this plan as
expeditiously as possible in order to bring improved care to VA
patients suffering from diabetes.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for the conference report 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 their
work in bringing this measure to the House Floor.
This Member would like to focus his remarks on the following five
areas: veterans, the Community Development Fund--Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME program, the American Indian Loan
Guarantee Program, and the issue of arsenic in drinking water.

1. veterans

First, this Member rises in strong support of the $47 billion in the
conference report that will be made available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) for improvements in health care, housing,
education and compensatory benefits to veterans and their dependents.
The 106th Congress has continued to make dramatic improvements in the
amount of funding available for veterans' services. Recent events in
the Middle East remind us of the sacrifices that are made by those who
have served our country and that we should remain true to our promise
of providing equal and accessible health care as well as other services
to all of our veterans throughout the United States no matter where
they live.

2. community development fund (CDF)

Second, this Member commends the $5.1 billion appropriations in the
conference report for grants to state and local governments to fund
selected community development programs, such as the highly successful
CDBG program. This appropriation is $257.6 million more than the
President's request. The CDBG program not only is valuable to the
larger entitlement cities, but it also gives assistance to those
communities under 50,000 through state administering agencies. It is a
government program with minimal overhead and bureaucracy.
In addition to this, this Member applauds the following set-asides
within the CDF account: the Whitcomb Conservatory at Doane College in
Crete, Nebraska; the downtown redevelopment of South Sioux City,
Nebraska; and the Cedar Youth Services in Lincoln, Nebraska.
A. Whitcomb Conservatory at Doane College
First, $430,000 is appropriated in the conference report for Doane
College in Crete, Nebraska, for the rehabilitation of the historic
Whitcomb Conservatory for joint use by the college and the community as
a performing arts center. This unique, five-sided structure built on
the ``Prairie'' or ``Frank L. Wright'' architectural style was
completed in 1907 and is a component of the Doane College Historic
District National Register listing. It has many unusual architectural
and construction features which make the building very important to
preserve. The funding is needed for major structural repair of its
roof, installation of a new mechanical system (including a new heating
and cooling plant), new wiring, and a complete cosmetic refurbishing.

The Conservatory has been vacant for more than 30 years. However, the
Crete community--as well as the student population of Doane is
growing--and necessitates refurbishing the building. Doane College and
the Crete community have a close and long-standing working relationship
and would have a formal joint-use agreement for the future use of
Whitcomb Conservatory. The restoration of the Conservatory would create
a community resource and provide a setting for musicals, summer
community theater, special concerts and lectures.
B. South Sioux City, Nebraska
Second, $430,000 is appropriated in the conference report for the
South Sioux City, Nebraska, Downtown Redevelopment Area--for the
redevelopment and rehabilitation of a civic building site. South Sioux
City, Nebraska, as part of the South City Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA), which also includes Sioux City, Iowa, and
North Sioux City, South Dakota, has the lowest per capita income of any
SMSA in the surrounding states. Moreover, South Sioux City, which
borders the Missouri River, has experienced a decline in employment and
tax base and was declared blighted in 1998 by local elected officials
in accordance with state law. This funding will be used for the much-
needed downtown redevelopment of South Sioux City.
C. Cedar Youth Services in Lincoln, Nebraska
Third, $1.25 million is appropriated in the conference report for
Cedar Youth Services' in Lincoln, Nebraska. Cedars Youth Services, a
leading social service provider in the City of Lincoln, would use this
funding to complete construction of a community center on the corner of
27th and Holdrege Streets to serve as the focal point for a variety of
services and support to strengthen and revitalize the surrounding
neighborhood. Social services, such a Head Start preschool classes, as
well as neighborhood-strengthening activities, such as preventative
health care and recreational opportunities, would be provided at the
North 27th Street Community Center. This appropriation builds on the
$550,000 which was appropriated in FY2000 for this project.

3. HOME Program

Third, this Member supports the $1.8 billion appropriation for the
HOME Investment Partnerships program in the conference report, which is
$215 million more than the President's request. This program provides
funds to states, units of local government, Indian tribes and others
for acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction to expand the
supply and quality of affordable housing.

4. American Indian Loan Guarantee Program

Fourth, this Member commends the inclusion of $6 million in loan
subsidy in the conference report for the HUD Section 184 Housing loan
guarantee program, which this Member created in consultation with a
range of Indian Housing specialists. A very conservative estimate would
suggest that this $6 million appropriation should facilitate over $72
million in guaranteed loans for privately financed homes for Indian
families who are otherwise unable to secure conventional financing due
to the trust status of Indian reservation land.

5. Arsenic in Drinking Water

Lastly, this Member is pleased that the conference report includes
language providing up to an additional six months for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a final regulation for arsenic in
drinking water. This Member shares the conferees concerns and has in
fact written a letter to EPA Administrator Browner asking hard and
specific questions about the necessity for this regulation. Over the
past month, this Member has received many letters from utilities
superintendents, city administrators, village boards, mayors and other
local officials who are understandably concerned about the effects this
proposed rule would have on their communities. The EPA has a
responsibility to really listen to these individuals' comments and to
address their concerns. The additional time provided in the H.R. 4635
conference report certainly will help.
Local officials in the 1st Congressional District of Nebraska have
not been convinced of

[[Page H10390]]

the need to lower the maximum contaminant level for arsenic from the
current 50 parts per billion (ppb) to possibly as low as 5 ppb. Such a
change could cost every water system customer hundreds of dollars per
year, if not more. The costs would fall disproportionately on the
smallest systems. It is also important to keep in mind that forcing
communities to treat water often results in a series of other problems
which must be addressed. Everyone certainly recognizes the importance
of providing safe drinking water and this Member obviously does not
support taking any action that would cause drinking water to become
unsafe. However the EPA has a clear responsibility to demonstrate the
need for such a drastic change which would have far-reaching
consequences. If there is inadequate science to support this rule,
communities should not be forced to divert scarce resources to come
into compliance.
Mr. Speaker, for these aforementioned reasons and others, this Member
would encourage his colleagues to support the conference report of H.R.
4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member on the Science
Committee, I rise in strong support of the VA-HUD Conference Report,
which is a much more satisfying bill than the one which passed the
House in June. I am especially pleased to see that the Conferees were
able to find funds for important programs at NASA and NSF that this
body didn't seem to have access to four months ago.
In June, the President's request for NASA was slashed by $377
million. One of the most troubling cuts in that bill was the
elimination of funding for the Space Launch Initiative, a program that
directed at developing advanced, reusable launch vehicles that will
dramatically reduce the cost of launching government and commercial
payloads. The high cost of access to space is the single largest
impediment to our ability to reach our full potential in space.
Fortunately, the bill we are considering today fully funds the Space
Launch Initiative.
In funding NASA at $14.285 billion, this Conference Report provides
the resources needed to ensure the successful development and assembly
of the International Space Station and the continued safe operation of
the Space Shuttle. H.R. 4635 also provides a healthy level of funding
for NASA's important Science, Aeronautics, and Technology activities.
Finally, I am pleased that H.R. 4635 requires NASA to provide for
annual life and micro-gravity sciences research missions on the Space
Shuttle.
I have long supported a vigorous program of life and micro-gravity
sciences flight research, and believe that such flights ultimately will
deliver significant scientific returns. At the same time, we will need
to ensure that such flights do not adversely disrupt the assembly of
the Space Station, which will be the ultimate venue for path-breaking
biomedical research in orbit.
As for the National Science Foundation appropriations, again, this
conference report is a great improvement over the House-passed bill,
which cut the Administration's request by $500 million. I know that in
June the Committee did the best that it could with the hand it was
dealt. But, had the cuts prevailed, NSF--an agency with a critically
important role in sustaining the nation's research and education
capabilities in all fields of science and engineering--would have been
severely damaged.
These cuts would have been short-sighted because basic research
discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy far
exceeding the public investment. The Internet, which emerged from
research projects funded by the DOD and NSF, strikingly illustrates the
true investment nature of such research expenditures. In fact, over the
past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to
technological innovation and the science that has supported it.
I am pleased that the conference report recognizes NSF's important
role by providing an historic increase of $539 million, or nearly 14
percent, above the previous year's budget level. This increase will
enable the Foundation to expand its investments in exciting, cutting-
edge research initiatives, including information technology, nanoscale
science and engineering, and environmental research.
Moreover, this new funding will enable NSF to increase average grant
size and duration, as well as increase the number of new awards. Last
year alone, NSF could not fund 3800 proposals that received very good
or excellent ratings by peer reviewers.
Finally, the increases provided by the conference report will begin
to address a growing imbalance in federal support for fundamental
research in the physical sciences and engineering relative to the
biomedical fields. This is a serious matter because for any field of
science progress is dependent on advances made in other fields.
This point was recently made by the past director of the National
Institutes of Health, Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus: ``Most of the
revolutionary changes that have occurred in biology and medicine are
rooted in new methods. Those, in turn, are usually rooted in
fundamental discoveries in many different fields.''
For the past half-decade, we have been very free in our support of
biomedical research. I consider that to be a very good thing for all of
our people. However, investing too narrowly in medical fields without
investing in all the other sciences--sciences that contribute to the
base of knowledge necessary for medical breakthroughs--will lead to a
slowdown in medical progress in the long-run.
I want to congratulate the Conferees on their work in this bill and
to particularly thank them for finding the resources necessary to keep
our Nation at the forefront of progress in space and science.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Chairman and our
Subcommittee for crafting such a fine bill which meets the needs of our
veterans, addresses our critical housing needs, protects our
environment and at the same time pays down our national debt.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee and the VA-HUD
Subcommittee, I support the common-sense approach the Committee has
already taken to address the problem of contaminated sediments in our
rivers.
Three years ago, Congress directed the EPA not to issue dredging or
capping regulations until the National Academy of Sciences completes a
study on the risks of such actions. Qualified scientists are working to
finish this report to determine the best way to clean up rivers with
nominal impact to the surrounding environment. This has been an open
process, allowing input from the public, environmental organizations,
and from the EPA itself.
I want to reiterate that in the final decision making process, the
EPA must ensure that remedies will protect human health and
environment, and be cost effective. The National Academy of Science
study will be extremely useful in guiding the EPA to develop the most
appropriate methods of mediation. My colleagues on the Committee and I
will be closely watching to ensure that EPA considers the
recommendations of the study and fully integrates them into the final
rule.
Additionally, the report language which accompanies this bill also
allows for the immediate sediment clean up in specific, urgent cases
where the contaminated sediment poses a significant threat to public
health. However, I would like to clarify that this exception is only
for new and immediate risks.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is an environmentally sensitive issue,
and it is important that most qualified, independent scientists weight
in on this regulation. This is why I support the existing language,
which directs the EPA not to act prematurely and to wait until the NAS
study is complete.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walsh for the excellent work he has
done on crafting this find bill. it has been a pleasure to work with
him this year.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, following the pattern of recent years, the
conference report for VA-HUD Appropriations ignores the funding cuts
for housing programs that the majority party paused through the House
earlier this year. The result is a product with very modest funding
boosts for affordable housing and economic development.
There are some positive provisions in the bill worth nothing.
Following the lead of the Administration and Congressional Democrats,
the conference report funds 79,000 incremental Section 8 vouchers, the
third year in a row that we have expanded the supply of rental housing
assistance.
Building on the efforts this year of many of us who successfully
fought to restore funding for expired, unrenewed Shelter Plus Care
homeless assistance grants, the conference report for the first time
creates a separate account for renewals, entitled ``Shelter Plus Care
Renewals.'' This account provides $100 million, enough to renew all
Shelter Plus Care grants expiring during fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
Unlike last year's approach, in which renewals were subject to
competing with all other projects under the broad McKinney-Vento Act
continuum of care competition, this separate funding source makes
renewals contingent only on meeting minimal, but reasonable
requirements that the ``project is determined to be needed under the
applicable continuum of care'' and that it ``meets appropriate program
requirements and financial standards, as determined by the Secretary.''
I am also pleased to see that the conference report continues for
another year the provision which allows non-insured Section 236
affordable housing projects to retain their ``excess income.'' This is
especially critical for non-profits which own affordable housing units
that are aging and in need of capital repair, since non-profits
typically lack access to capital or financing to make such needed
repairs.

[[Page H10391]]

Another positive development is that the conference report, like the
House-passed language, expands the range of eligible applicants for the
$50 million in grants to convert elderly affordable housing units to
assisted living. Last year's bill limited grant eligibility to only
Section 202 elderly housing units. this year's bill refers specifically
to Section 202b (Section 2 from H.R. 1624, my ``Elderly Housing Quality
Improvement Act'' of last year). This section, enacted last year,
authorizes conversion grants, and generally makes all federal elderly
housing projects eligible.
Finally, I am pleased to see that the conference report extends the
nationwide application of FHA down payment simplification for another
twenty-seven months, through December 31, 2002. While there is
overwhelming bi-partisan House support for making down simplification
permanent, this provision at least guarantees that we will have all of
the next Congress to further extend its application or make it
permanent.
However, notwithstanding these few provisions and the modest funding
increases, the real story of this bill is one of missed opportunities.
For example, the House earlier this year passed, as part of H.R. 1776,
a bill that I authorized to provide one percent down FHA mortgage loans
for teachers, policemen, and firemen buying a home in the school
district or local jurisdiction of employment. This same provision was
included in the Senate version of this year's VA-HUD appropriations
bill. Yet, in conference this provision was inexplicably stripped out.
This is doubly unfortunate, because the provisions would have actually
raised funds, which could have been reinvested in housing, veterans, or
other worthy programs.
The conference report is also notable for its lack of any new
affordable housing production initiative. This is in spite of the fact
that the Senate bill had included a new capital grant housing
production bill, and the House version had included incremental voucher
linked to new affordable housing production.
Moreover, unlike last year's bill, the conference report does not
include any additional provisions from H.R. 202, the elderly housing
bill which passed the House last year. This raises the prospect that we
will adjourn without acting on the Vento matching grant program for
housing preservation, a number of related provisions to encourage mixed
income elderly housing, greater flexibility in the use of elderly and
disabled service coordinators, and a provision to make it easier for
sponsors of Section 202 elderly housing projects to use savings from
refinancing for the benefit of their projects or tenants.
So, with respect to housing, this is a modest bill which undoes the
harm of the House-passed bill, but which is notably lacking in making
any dramatic progress to address the growing affordable housing
challenges facing our low- and moderate-income seniors, disabled, and
families. Hopefully, we will redouble our efforts in this area next
year.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
the Fiscal Year 2001, VA/HUD appropriations bill. The Appropriations
Committee has put together a bill that is truly bipartisan. I am proud
to rise in strong support of this measure which funds such important
priorities as veterans health care and benefits, section 8 family
housing, housing for persons with AIDS, and key environmental programs.
This measure also provides much needed resources to assist state and
local governments with infrastructure improvement and economic
development needs.
The Central Naugatuck Valley, in my district, has been undergoing a
major water infrastructure upgrade. I am pleased that under the State
and Territorial Assistance Grant Program, $1,000,000 has been
appropriated for these much needed improvements.
The City of Waterbury, which operates the hub of the region's sewer
system, has been burdened by the majority of the cost for these
improvements. Therefore, $750,000 (of the total $1,000,000) will go to
the City of Waterbury for wastewater infrastructure improvements
including the cost of the new sewage treatment facility in the City.
The Town of Wolcott, Connecticut is partially served by the water
system of the City of Waterbury. However, the Clinton Hill Road
neighborhood of Wolcott relies on well water and septic systems for
their water needs. Recently, this area of the town has been
experiencing well failures and contamination. Under this legislation,
the Town of Wolcott will receive $250,000 (of the total $1,000,000)
toward the extension of the water distribution system to the Clinton
Hill Road neighborhood.
Finally, I would like to also point out that $100,000 has been
appropriated for the Town of Beacon Falls toward the purchase of the
currently nearly vacant Pinebridge Industrial Park. The purchase of
this property will enable Beacon Falls to develop an economically vital
and viable industrial park. To Beacon Falls, the failure to fill the
existing park with tenants over the years represents many missed
opportunities for economic development and an expanded tax base. This
funding will allow the Town to at last address this issue in an
effective way.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to support this measure not only
because of what it means to my District, but also for what it means to
America's veterans, our environment and those who receive the vital
housing assistance they need in order to partake in the American Dream.
Thank you.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
4635.
H.R. 4635 includes provisions which address benefits for our World
War II Filipino Veterans. These provisions add only a small incremental
benefit to these veterans who fought side-by-side to our soldiers in
World War II.
I have long argued that Congress must act to establish parity for
these Filipino Veterans. Those of us familiar with this injustice
recall President Roosevelt's promise of U.S. citizenship and veterans
benefits to Filipinos who fought alongside our soldiers in World War
II. Prior to the war the Philippines had been a United States
possession for 42 years.
On June 26, 1941, when President Roosevelt issued his Executive Order
nearly 200,000 Filipinos responded. They responded without hesitation
to defend their homeland, and because they felt part of the United
States Government.
During four years, Filipino soldiers fought alongside American
Soldiers. They bravely fought in every major battle, and endured years
of captivity.
In 1946 Congress broke its promise to these Filipino Veterans when it
denied full benefits to them.
The issue today is not should we correct this injustice, but when
will we fulfill our obligation?
H.R. 4635 increases the disability benefit compensation for Filipino
Veterans who currently live in the United States. Currently, they
receive only 50% of the disability compensation paid to other veterans
with service-connected disabilities. H.R. 4635 also allows Filipino
Veterans who currently receive medical care in VA facilities for
service-connected disabilities to receive care for illnesses and
injuries that are not service-connected.
H.R. 4635 also benefits Filipino Veterans living in the Philippines.
Filipino Veterans currently receiving medical care at a VA facility for
service-connected conditions will now receive full medical care at VA
outpatient facilities in the Philippines.
The $3 million appropriated by H.R. 4635 to fund these two provisions
represent an improvement in the status of Filipino Veterans. I want to
stress this is not a new benefit for Filipino Veterans. It supplements
what they already receive.
Those Filipino Veterans who receive no benefit now, will not benefit
from this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4635 because it recognizes our obligation
to Filipino Veterans by increasing disability compensation and medical
care for Filipino Veterans with service-connected disabilities.
However, Congress must fulfill its obligation and enact legislation
that establishes parity between Filipino Veterans and their American
counterparts. There is no excuse for this continuing injustice.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the VA-HUDS-IA Conference
Report that would significantly increase funding above the earlier
House and Senate passed levels for vital housing programs. I commend
HUD Secretary Cuomo, President Clinton, and Representative Alan
Mollohan, Ranking Member of the HUD-VA House Subcommittee, for their
tremendous leadership on housing issues and their success in increasing
America's investment in affordable housing for impoverished Americans.
In June, I joined with most Democrats in voting to oppose the
Republican led House bill that was severely underfunded. Thanks to the
success of our Democratic leadership, today, I intend to vote for this
improved agreement. Although I am glad this agreement increases funding
levels, we must recognize that it still does not meet America's housing
needs. Despite America's continuing economic growth, an estimated 5.4
million Americans pay more than half their income for rent and millions
more live at risk of homelessness. We must continue to do more to
develop new quality affordable housing, preserve existing affordable
units, and provide needed housing and services to homeless Americans
and those with special needs to ensure they have an adequate foundation
to participate in our growing economy.
This bill is so important because it assists low income Americans.
HUD residents of Section 8 housing and public housing have an average
annual income of $7,800. This bill also assists seniors on fixed
incomes and people with disabilities and special needs. Without this
housing assistance, working men and women would be forced to choose
between housing, health care, food, and other basic needs.

[[Page H10392]]

This agreement provides funding increases to important programs; $258
million for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS programs
[HOPWA]; $452 million for 79,000 new Section 8 housing vouchers for
low-income Americans; $100 million for a new Shelter Plus Care account
to renew expiring homeless projects; $3 billion to modernize and make
capital improvements to public housing and $3.242 billion to operate
public housing for the 1.4 million American families who live there;
and $1.8 billion for the HOME program to produce affordable housing for
poor Americans.
Of particular importance to San Francisco, this agreement provides
$258 million for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
program [HOPWA] to assist low-income persons with AIDS and their
families with short-term rental assistance and mortgage assistance, and
provides assistance to acquire, construct, modernize, or operate
facilities and deliver supportive services. HOPWA provides vital
resources to ensure that people living with HIV and AIDS have access to
the stable housing that is necessary for their medical care. More than
200,000 people with HIV/AIDS are currently in need of housing
assistance, and 50% of those living with this disease will need housing
assistance at some point during their illness. Increase in housing
demand and the number of people living with HIV/AIDS mean that San
Francisco's HOPWA needs are greater than ever. This increase will
greatly benefit those living with HIV/AIDS.
I urge my colleagues to support this Conference Report and increase
housing assistance to low-income Americans.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the statement accompanying this conference
report contains language which directs the Environmental Protection
agency (EPA) to take no action to initiate or order the use of dredging
or invasive remedial technologies where a final plan has not been
adopted prior to October 1, 2000, or where such activities are not now
occurring until the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, which
Congress required, has been completed and its findings have been
properly considered by the agency. The language further provides that
remediation plans which include dredging or invasive technologies are
not to be finalized until June 30, 2001, or until the agency has
properly considered the NAS report, whichever comes first. It is
important to note that the language provides for exceptions to this
limitation on the initiation of dredging or invasive remedies, and
these exceptions include instances in which a party may voluntarily
agree to the remedy, or ``urgent'' cases where ``contaminated sediment
poses a significant threat to public health.''
As in years past, this language speaks to the importance of obtaining
information on the various technologies for addressing contaminated
sediments. I hope that the NAS will complete this study as soon as
practicable, and sooner than the date by which the conferees encourage
its completion.
However, I wish to clarify, as my colleagues in the Senate have
noted, that this language is not an amendment to the Superfund statute.
This language is not a product of the regular order of legislative
business that may result in an amendment to our laws, after full and
fair consideration by the authorizing Committees. The statutory
criteria by which the EPA selects remedies, the regulatory criteria
promulgated under the statutory authority, and applicable guidance are
not changed by this language. When the NAS study becomes available, the
language directs EPA to ``properly consider'' the study. The language
does not direct the agency to confer deference to the study, nor to
adopt its recommendations in remedial decisions. I note that the
Chairman of the Subcommittee in the Senate has concurred with this
interpretation of this language.
My colleagues in the Senate also have clarified that the terms
``urgent'' and ``significant threat to public health'' as used in this
language should be defined within the discretion of the EPA. I note
that the EPA has specific authority governing its ability to issue
orders under the Superfund statute, and I reiterate that this language
is not an amendment to a statute. In keeping with the spirit and intent
of the statute, the EPA should not interpret this language to limit the
scope of its authorities to address threats posed to human health and
the environment.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues Messrs. Towns, Oberstar, and Borski
request that I state their concurrence with this statement.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 386,
nays 24, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 536]

YEAS--386

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

NAYS--24

Andrews
Archer
Barton
Bliley
Castle
Chabot
Coburn
Cox
DeMint
Gibbons
Hostettler
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Paul
Pitts
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stenholm
Tancredo
Toomey

NOT VOTING--22

Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Conyers
Franks (NJ)
Goodling

[[Page H10393]]

Hansen
Houghton
Jones (OH)
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
McCollum
McIntosh
Miller (FL)
Oxley
Rodriguez
Shays
Talent
Thompson (MS)
Turner
Wise

{time} 1413

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________