[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.

                          ____________________