[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11028-11037]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4635, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS 
  AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 525 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 525

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with 
     ``except that'' on page 63, line 4, through ``drinking water 
     contaminants'' on line 8; page 67, lines 4 through 14. Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, 
     points of order against a provision in another part of such 
     paragraph may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points 
     of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause 
     2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 525 is an open rule that provides for 
the consideration of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Under this open rule, the bill will be considered for amendment by 
paragraph, and Members will offer their amendments under the 5-minute 
rule. Priority recognition will be afforded to those Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding unauthorized or 
legislative provisions of the bill, except as specified in the rule.
  The rule also waives points of order against amendments for failure 
to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI since there is an emergency 
designation in the bill.
  In an effort to provide for orderly and expedited consideration of 
the bill, the

[[Page 11029]]

rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone 
votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes as long as the first vote in 
a series is 15 minutes.
  Finally, the minority will have an additional opportunity to change 
the bill through the customary motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill 
provides another example of a carefully crafted bill that strikes a 
balance between fiscal discipline and social responsibility.
  I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and 
his subcommittee for setting priorities and making very tough decisions 
required to produce a thoughtful bill that meets our greatest needs. It 
was hard work, and it was done well.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill funds a variety of programs from 
veterans' benefits and housing for the poor to the space program and 
environmental protection. Overall, this year's bill provides $4.9 
billion more than last year in discretionary spending.
  Within the confines of a limited budget allocation, the subcommittee 
set priorities and decided to provide a significant portion of this 
year's increase to veterans medical care. An extra $1.3 billion is 
provided to veterans health care which will help the Federal Government 
repay the debt we owe to those Americans who were willing to trade 
their lives to protect the freedoms that we enjoy. It may be impossible 
to compensate these individuals for their contributions and their 
sacrifices, but this bill makes a good-faith effort.
  Under this legislation, more than $20 billion will be available to 
provide medical care and treatment for veterans through VA medical 
centers, nursing homes, outpatient facilities, and other institutions 
that make up the largest Federal health care delivery system.
  This bill does not just throw more money at the VA health system. It 
recognizes its shortcomings and makes recommendations for improvements. 
For example, the bill limits the amount of resources that may be used 
for maintenance and operations of buildings. A GAO report shows that 
one in four medical dollars is spent on upkeep of facilities which 
demonstrates poor planning that unnecessarily zaps resources from 
medical care.
  In addition, the bill addresses a concern about the alarming 
incidents of hepatitis C among veterans and directs the GAO to examine 
the VA's response to this awful epidemic.
  This legislation also directs the Department to review its drug 
formulary with a goal of ensuring veterans' access to necessary 
medications, medical supplies prescribed to them.
  In addition to taking care of our veterans, the Federal government 
has a responsibility to the poor and the vulnerable in our society, 
especially those Americans who cannot provide the most basic 
necessities to themselves and their families, such as housing.
  Low-income families will benefit through this bill's investment in 
the Housing Certificate Program which provides funding for Section 8 
renewals and tenant protections. A $1.9 billion increase will allow for 
renewal of all expiring Section 8 contracts as well as provide 
relocation assistance at the level requested by the President.
  Other housing programs that help our Nation's elderly, homeless, 
persons with AIDS, and Native Americans will receive level funding.
  In addition to addressing today's societal needs, the Federal 
Government has a responsibility to look to the future and protect the 
interests of the next generation.
  The VA-HUD bill fulfills that responsibility by funding environmental 
protection through the EPA. Specifically, this legislation puts an 
emphasis on the States, particularly in the areas of clean water, safe 
drinking water, and clean air.
  The State Revolving Fund for safe drinking water will be increased by 
$5 million, the fund for clean water will be increased by $400 million 
above the President's request, and State air grants will receive an 
increase of $16 million over last year.
  Along with our commitment to environmental protection, an investment 
in science and technology will secure our Nation's future strength.
  The VA-HUD bill will provide an increase of $167 million for the 
National Science Foundation, bringing funding for this agency to $4.1 
billion. This investment will help the agency continue its mission of 
developing a national policy on science and promoting basic research 
and education in the sciences. NASA will also see an increase of $112 
million. That will bring total funding to more than $13.7 billion.
  Through this legislation, the United States will have the resources 
to maintain its preeminence in space and aeronautical research and 
accomplishment.
  Madam Speaker, despite these thoughtful investments in our Nation's 
priorities, we are likely to again hear our Democrat colleagues bemoan 
the lack of funding in this bill. But I would remind my colleagues and 
make clear to the American people that we are increasing funding over 
what we spent last year. In fact, total funding from this legislation 
is $8.2 billion above last year's level.
  Does every program get an increase? No. But it is irresponsible to 
suggest that level funding or small cuts in some programs will lead to 
devastation. The truth is that this legislation takes a responsible 
path of governance by maintaining fiscal discipline and adhering to 
budget limits. These constraints require us to take a hard look at 
Federal programs, reduce waste and fraud where we can, and set 
priorities. That is exactly the kind of oversight Congress needs to 
exercise if we are to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers' hard-
earned money.
  We must reject the simplicity of arguments that say more spending is 
always better and, instead, look at spending bills in the context of 
where our Nation's needs lie and what priorities we can fulfill within 
our means.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this open rule and support 
the fiscal and social responsibility the underlying legislation 
embodies.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half-
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the bill for which this rule provides consideration 
funds two sets of programs, the veterans programs and the housing 
programs. While it does a relatively good job funding most veterans 
programs, and I really applaud the committee, that is just the good 
news. The bad news is that it just does not go far enough in funding 
veterans medical research and State veterans homes. The bill severely 
underfunds housing programs to the tune of $2.5 billion less than the 
President's request.
  Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleagues from firsthand experience on 
both counts, veteran and housing, that they are very vital. They save 
lives, they give people hope, and they should be adequately funded. 
That is why I just cannot understand why my Republican colleagues are 
so opposed to adding this additional money to help Americans find 
affordable housing.
  Tuesday's Washington Post editorialized this bill, saying, and I 
quote, ``HUD reports that 5.4 million families are either paying more 
than half their income for housing or having to live in severely 
inadequate accommodations.'' The Post further explains that what might 
be an economic boom for the rich and middle classes is actually a 
problem for affordable housing. As the economy gets better, affordable 
housing gets harder and harder to obtain.
  Yet my Republican colleagues are determined once again to use the 
budget surplus to give tax breaks for the very rich rather than to use 
it to help everyone else find some kind of housing. Specifically, Madam 
Speaker, this bill will freeze spending for low-income elderly and 
disabled people, it will cut home programs which help local governments 
expand low-income housing, it cuts capital grants for public housing, 
and it cuts Community Development Block Grants. In short, it does

[[Page 11030]]

very little to improve the plight of millions of American families that 
are struggling to find housing in today's very, very tough market.
  That is not all, Madam Speaker. In addition to ignoring the plight of 
the American families, this bill could do much more to make sure 
American veterans get the very best medical care that we can provide. 
Madam Speaker, veterans of World War II, the men who risked their lives 
for world peace, are dying at the rate of 1,000 people a day. For many 
in veterans health care, it just has not been all that it has been 
promised to be.
  Madam Speaker, World War II veterans, all American veterans, deserve 
the best health care we can afford them. They need their country to 
keep its promise. And although this bill funds veterans medical care at 
the President's request, it still is really not enough to meet the need 
of the aging veterans population. For instance, this bill freezes 
funding for veterans medical research, the research that makes sure our 
veterans hospitals attract the very best doctors and provide the very 
best care. It also cuts money for the construction of State veterans 
homes.
  Madam Speaker, listen to this fact. One-third of all the homeless 
people living in the streets are veterans of our military. This is 
absolutely wrong. Today, there are 5.9 million veterans of World War 
II. They make up one-fourth of all our American veterans. There are 8.1 
million Vietnam era veterans, 4.1 million Korean conflict veterans, 2.2 
million Gulf War veterans, 3,400 World War I veterans, not to mention 
5.8 million peacetime veterans. Now, Madam Speaker, that is a lot of 
people expecting their country to make good on the promise of good 
health care, and this bill does not go far enough to honor that 
commitment.
  It also fails to fund either AmeriCorps or an EPA cleanup of the 
Great Lakes. It underfunds NASA. It severely underfunds, by more than 
$2.5 billion, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, our 
Nation's safety net in time of natural disasters. Madam Speaker, we 
should all cross our fingers and hope that there are no hurricanes, no 
floods, and no tornadoes next year, because we may not be able to pay 
for them. Madam Speaker, during this economic boom, during this 
unprecedented American prosperity, we should be looking to adequately 
fund these Federal programs and we have not.
  In the Committee on Rules, my Republican colleagues rejected two 
amendments, one to increase funding for elderly housing, disabled 
housing, homeless housing and housing for people with AIDS, and another 
to restore funding for housing, NASA, and the National Science 
Foundation. Both amendments were defeated on a party vote. Madam 
Speaker, without these amendments, the bill simply does not go far 
enough to help the people who really need it. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill and oppose this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me simply say that this is one of six appropriation bills that 
the President has indicated he would veto, because this is one of the 
bills that is scaled back by a huge amount from the President's request 
in order to make enough room in the budget for the Republican tax 
package which gives 73 percent of the benefits to people who are in the 
richest 1 percent category of all taxpayers. They give, for instance, 
$90 billion in one bill alone in tax relief to people who make over 
$300,000 a year. And so because they use the money for that, they have 
to invent ``let's pretend'' games on this bill.
  Previous comment was just made that this is $4 billion over last 
year. Baloney. Last year's budget contained $45 billion of accounting 
tricks that made last year's budget look $45 billion smaller than it 
is, and $4.2 billion of the $4.9 billion alleged increase in this bill 
comes because of those budget gimmicks that hid last year's spending.
  This bill is $6.5 billion below the President's request. On veterans, 
it includes a welcome increase for veterans medical care, but it fails 
to address adequately a number of other veterans programs. It freezes 
funding for veterans medical and prosthetic research, it cuts grants 
for construction of State veterans homes and a variety of other items.
  In a politically pugnacious act that is bound to cause turmoil rather 
than pull people together, the committee has eliminated all funding for 
the President's top priority, the AmeriCorps program. On housing, it 
does virtually nothing to improve the housing situation in this 
country. It appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing units, 
the vouchers proposed by the administration.
  It cuts the Community Development Block Grant by $276 million below 
current level. Assistance for the homeless is frozen, which will mean 
more homeless people will be frozen, too, come next winter. It provides 
$2.5 billion less than the President requests.
  On EPA, in addition to some of the other reductions in the 
President's budget, it totally rejects the President's proposal for $50 
million to begin a major cleanup of the Great Lakes.
  The National Science Foundation. The President's request is cut by 
$500 million. I will return to that in a minute.
  This bill ought to be called the Tobacco Company Protection Act of 
the Year 2000. There is a slippery scheme going on in this Congress. 
What is happening is that, first of all, the Justice Department is 
being denied funds in the bill that funds that agency in order to 
pursue suits against the tobacco companies for lying to this country 
for 50 years about the cancer-causing nature of tobacco. The Justice 
Department is provided no funds in their own bill, and then, in each of 
the appropriation bills coming through here, the Justice Department is 
forbidden from going to other agencies that would benefit from our suit 
to recover funds to help finance it. So the veterans department will 
lose millions of dollars in potential additional revenue, and Medicare 
will lose billions of dollars in additional potential revenue.
  I never want to hear the other side prattle any more about their 
dedication to Medicare, because this ought to be called the Medicare 
Insolvency Act of 2000. The Republicans assure that the government 
cannot effectively proceed to sue the tobacco companies to get back 
some of the costs that Medicare and veterans programs have laid out 
because of the lying performance of the tobacco industry over the last 
40 years.
  What the Republicans ought to tell the tobacco companies is that they 
ought to go jump in the nearest lake. But this Congress does not have 
the guts to do that. These provisions are in these bills for one 
reason. Not because they are right, but because the tobacco companies 
are powerful, and they ought to be stripped out.
  Now, I would like to return to the National Science Foundation. Every 
politician on this floor brags about what we are doing for the National 
Institutes of Health. Oh, yes, we want to get their budgets up by 15 
percent, so we raise the NIH budget by 15 percent. NIH does research on 
all health problems in the country. But then what happens is, the 
committee slips a little provision in the labor-health bill which says, 
``Oh, yes, we have appropriated a $3.7 billion increase, but NIH can 
only spend $1 billion of it.'' Which means they will have fewer new 
research grants going out next year than this year.
  And then take a look at the National Science Foundation. Economists 
tell us that in the past 50 years half of the United States economic 
productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the 
science that has supported and developed it. The way science works is 
that organizations such as the National Science Foundation develop the 
basic science. And then, when they answer the key questions of nature, 
then that science is given to the National Institutes of Health and the 
National Institutes of Health do research which is more applied in 
nature, leading to specific cures for specific diseases. But the 
underlying foundation of all progress

[[Page 11031]]

against human disease is the National Science Foundation, and the 
President's budget for it is being whacked by $500 billion.
  Now, I know that the chairman of this subcommittee is a good man. And 
if he had enough dollars, he would put dollars in the National Science 
Foundation. It is not his fault that this bill is in a shambles like 
this. He has done the best he can, given the fact that he was given an 
impossible limit on what the committee could provide in the first 
place.
  I would urge a vote against the bill, and I would also urge a vote 
against the rule, because the Committee on Rules made in order none of 
the amendments that we requested in order to try to correct this 
problem. They say, ``Oh, the amendments had no offsets.'' Our position 
is that virtually everything we are trying to do to increase funding 
for education, for health care, for science, can be financed by about a 
20 to 30 percent reduction in the size of the tax gifts that the other 
side is planning to give to the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans. 
That is the linkage. They resent it every time we raise it, but that is 
the truth.
  Even the amendment that was offset, that would have provided tiny 
amounts of additional help for housing for the elderly, for the 
disabled, for the homeless, and for housing opportunities for people 
with AIDS, even that amendment, which would have provided an offset by 
using funding that was already approved in passage of the authorization 
bill that passed this House by only four dissenting votes, even that 
was denied.

                              {time}  0930

  So I urge rejection of this bill and I urge rejection of the rule. 
And, sooner or later, I urge the majority party to begin a process of 
working together so we can produce bipartisan appropriations bills 
rather than partisan political documents.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing me to 
work with my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Judge Pryce), who has guided this rule through the House now for 
2 years in a row. She does it with aplomb and grace. We appreciate her 
help not only today but also in the full Committee on Rules.
  I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us a fair and 
honest rule, for giving us an opportunity to bring this bill to the 
floor with an open rule, and to protect what should be protected and 
not protect what should not be protected in the bill.
  This is, as has been discussed, a very complex bill. It is always 
easier to bring a bill through the House with lots of extra money in 
it. Positive things seem to happen when we do that. But we do not have 
lots of extra money.
  I would submit that, if we provided all the money that the President 
requested for this bill, our surplus would be far smaller than it is 
projected. And it says something about the way we have attempted to 
present this bill and the other bills.
  We know that, no matter how much we spend, the White House will want 
to spend more. That is a fact. Everybody knows that. So when we get to 
the end of this process, if we are up here with the House bill or the 
conference report, the President will get us to here. So if we start 
here, then we maybe get a little bit higher because we know there is an 
unlimited thirst for more spending down there.
  So do we have enough money in this bill to meet all of our needs? 
Barely. Will we probably spend more by the time we are finished? I 
suspect that we will. History would tell us that that is true.
  What we tried to do was present an honest bill with honest numbers, 
and the House will make its judgment on this today.
  What we did do, Madam Speaker, is we put in a fully funded Veterans 
Medical Care package, $1.355 billion. That is what the President 
requested. That is what the subcommittee presented.
  Now, I would remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, last year the 
President wanted to level fund the Veterans Medical Care. We put in 
over, I believe, $1.7 billion last year above the President's request. 
I think the President learned from that. Now he has realized that the 
veterans are a priority with the House; and he came back with, I think, 
an honest request, and we honored it.
  So I think we have done well for veterans in this bill. I think that 
any Member who supports this bill, the main reason they will do so is 
because they want to keep our commitment to our veterans.
  As my colleagues know, there are a number of other areas in this bill 
that we address. One of them is HUD. The President asked for a 20 
percent increase in HUD funding, 20 percent equals a $6 billion 
increase in HUD.
  Now, my colleagues can imagine what would happen if we did that with 
every bureau in the Federal budget. There would be no surplus. We would 
be back in deficit spending. So we tried to pare that request down to 
meet the absolute needs of the housing and economic development aspects 
of this bill.
  We fully funded section 8 housing. There was a request on the part of 
the administration to put an additional 120,000 section 8 vouchers into 
this bill.
  Madam Speaker, they did not even use $2 billion worth of section 8 
money last year; 247,000 section 8 vouchers went begging last year.
  Now, what kind of service is that to the American public? What kind 
of service is that to the people who deserve and need the help of their 
government to provide for their housing? 247,000 section 8 vouchers 
unused. And they are asking for another 120,000 this year.
  We will be glad to discuss those at the end of this process, but HUD 
needs to do a lot better job of using these billions of dollars that we 
are appropriating to provide for housing for those among us who have 
the most need.
  Within the Community Development Block Grant program there was a 
slight reduction of $20 million in the Block Grant program. So there 
will be a very tiny reduction in this Community Development Block Grant 
program for our cities and our entitlement communities.
  EPA's operating programs have been funded, while the various State 
programs which assist the States in implementing Federal law have been 
more than fully funded.
  The Clean Water SRF program that was gutted by the President's budget 
request has been restored to $1.2 billion, while State and local air 
grants and section 13 non-point source pollution grants have been 
significantly increased.
  Perhaps most importantly, we proposed a $245 million expenditure, 
more than double last year's amount and $85 million more than the 
President requested, for section 106 pollution control grants. These 
grants offer the States maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult 
TMDL issues facing the States.
  One of my distinguished colleagues on the other side said that FEMA 
was underfunded by over $2 billion. I would remind my colleague that 
there is $2 billion in the FEMA pipeline unspent, unobligated, 
authorized, and appropriated. Those funds are waiting for an emergency 
that we all know will come, and we are ready for it. And those $2 
billion are waiting for that to happen. When it happens, FEMA will 
begin to pay out. And if $2 billion is not enough, we will do an 
emergency supplemental, which we do every single year, at least one.
  So I think $2 billion waiting in the pipeline is sufficient to handle 
any emergency; and if it is not, we can provide the balance through the 
emergency supplemental.
  Madam Speaker, there is one point regarding this bill which needs to 
be made. I stated at the outset that we face a tight allocation. 
Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that we

[[Page 11032]]

had a tremendously huge increase in our allocation, over $5 billion. I 
would like to try to clarify that.
  The reality is that our allocation is $78 billion in new budget 
authority. The reality is that CBO reported our freeze level at $76.9 
billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just a little over $1 
billion in actual budget authority over last year.
  I hasten to add that that increase has been eaten up by the VA 
Medical Care increase of over $1.3 billion, and the section 8 housing 
vouchers, which we fully funded even though they are not spending it. 
We wanted to be fair; and hopefully, HUD will do a better job of 
getting that money out to the people who need it; and increases in 
National Science Foundation and NASA. NASA is increased by over $100 
million and National Science Foundation by $167 million, very 
substantial increases.
  Lastly, I would just like to make a point on this issue of tobacco in 
this bill. There has been a lot of rhetoric. We are going to hear a lot 
more today. I would just like to point out that this subcommittee has 
struggled mightily to make sure that we have the resources available to 
provide for our veterans' medical care, to meet the commitments that 
were made years and years and years ago to those men and women who put 
their lives on the line for their country.
  Now the administration is shopping from one budget to the next to 
find the money to run this suit against the tobacco companies. If they 
want to do that, that is fine. All we are saying is do not use medical 
care money, do not use our veterans' medical care funds.
  There is not one single veterans' organization that has come out and 
said, yes, it is okay to use our medical care money for this lawsuit. 
Not one. We are going to hear something possibly to the contrary. But 
listen closely. What the veterans are saying is, we have no objection 
to this lawsuit. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not, either. But do 
not use veterans' medical care, because those dollars are precious. And 
we can tell our colleagues in each and every area of health care what 
impact those losses of $4 million to $6 million per year as long as 
that suit goes on will mean to our veterans.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. Is it perfect? No. 
If it were, I would not have my name on it, because I do not think I 
have ever done anything perfect. But it is a good start. I would 
appreciate very much the support of both parties across the aisle. If 
we do not get that, I think we can pass this bill anyway. But I would 
like to have bipartisan support. I think we will by the time we are 
completed.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, to respond to the previous 
speaker.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, my distinguished friend has just indicated that we 
should not use veterans' money because that money is too precious and 
we should not use it in a tobacco suit. Well, if you do not let the 
Justice Department use its own money and if you do not let the agencies 
who are going to receive the money from that suit, you are not going to 
have a successful suit.
  The fact is that this suit will bring in many times more dollars to 
the veterans' health care fund than it would ever cost to pursue that 
suit; and, in my judgment, if you vote against allowing that to happen, 
you are really voting to make the veterans' health care fund less sound 
than it is and to make Medicare less sound than it is.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I just wanted to 
respond.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct. I think the 
Justice Department should use their own funds, not veterans' medical 
care funds. I would remind the gentleman that there is absolutely no 
guarantee that any of those funds will come back to the veterans.
  In fact, if the administration's policies are consistent, those funds 
will go into the Treasury, just like the funds that are available from 
the Veterans Millennium Health Care Fund that plows private insurance 
back into the Treasury. We want those funds to go into the Veterans' 
Administration.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, let me point out that the amendment that we 
offered, the amendment that the Committee on Appropriations refused to 
make in order, specifically provided that the money would go in that 
veterans' account. If you do not believe it, ask the sponsor of the 
amendment. She is sitting right here.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and comment on 
this bill. It is a pleasure, also, to recognize the efforts of our good 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who faced a very 
difficult position in this particular subcommittee this year, because 
it simply was not given an allocation sufficient to do the job.
  I have previously made an issue of this inadequate allocation on the 
floor. I have also generated a letter to the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations and to the Speaker pointing out the need to increase 
the allocation to this subcommittee so that it can meet its 
responsibilities in the various areas. I am referring particularly to 
one special area, and the rest of my comments will be regarding that.
  Many times I have spoken to the House and to the Nation about the 
importance of continuing a strong research effort in science, 
engineering, technology, and mathematics. Very few people in this 
country realize that this marvelous economic boom that we now enjoy is 
due largely to advancements in science and technology.
  One-third of our economic growth is due just to one factor. That 
factor is information technology. When we add to that the improvements 
and increases in technology in other areas, we find well over half of 
our economic growth is due just to advancements in science and 
technology. It is absolutely essential for our country to keep ahead of 
this research curve if we want our economic boom to continue.
  Right now, relative to other nations, our investments in science, 
engineering, technology, and mathematics research have been decreasing. 
For example, Japan's research funds, as a percent of GDP, are greater 
than ours and increasing faster. Germany is above us. South Korea, 
believe it or not, is advancing rapidly and very shortly will be 
spending more for research, as a percent of GDP, than the United 
States.
  Those countries recognize that they have to do this to remain 
economically viable and to catch up with us.

                              {time}  0945

  Our Nation has made improvements in the last several years. I am 
really delighted with the budget that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) and others developed last year in this area. I am also pleased 
with what he has been able to do this year within his allocation. Last 
year the funding in the House bill was so abysmal that I offered a 
floor amendment. This year I do not plan to do that, because the 
gentleman from New York has done yeoman's service in coming to the 
floor with an amount for science, mathematics, and engineering research 
that is appropriate, given his allocation. But the point is the 
allocation simply was not large enough.
  I want to get on the record that my lack of offering an amendment 
this year does not mean I am happy with this bill's scientific research 
budget or think it is great enough. Rather, I am convinced that given 
the gentleman from New York's good efforts and what he has done with 
the small allocation he has, I believe that, when we go to conference 
and deal with the Senate and negotiate with the President, the final 
result will be good for the Nation and good for the scientific research 
community. I wanted to get on the record that this is an extremely 
important area for our Nation and for our future, particularly our 
long-term future.

[[Page 11033]]

I hope all of us in this Congress will unite in providing sufficient 
funding for scientific research.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) who has called this measure ``a series of missed 
opportunities.'' I completely agree. These opportunities have been 
squandered because the priority of the Republican leadership has been 
to provide huge tax cuts to the wealthiest of all Americans. Dollars 
earmarked to tax cuts are not available to fund programs important to 
most Americans.
  Among those opportunities squandered are $25 million less for medical 
research conducted by the VA. This is some of the best research in the 
whole United States going after Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's 
disease. This money would be cut by $25 million. There is $80 million 
less funding for the construction of State homes to provide for the 
growing need of long-term care for our Nation's disabled, infirm, and 
aging veterans; $3 million less to maintain our national cemeteries; 
and $62 million less for other important construction projects.
  My Republican colleagues will say that they were constrained to 
provide this needed funding. Do not be misled. Squandered opportunities 
and available shortfalls in funding for basic programs are the 
consequences of the priority of the Republican leadership of this 
House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  Mr. LaFALCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I have the greatest both professional and personal 
respect and admiration for the chairman of the housing appropriation 
subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan). I think they have done the best job they possibly 
could. But by their own words, they said they were operating under a 
constraint, an overly tight allocation. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers) came up, I have the greatest respect for him, too, and he 
bemoaned the fact that we have to live under this unbelievable 
constraint. That constraint is grounds enough for voting against the 
bill because it is much, much too tight in virtually every area. When 
we look at real cuts, we have had real cuts over the past 6 years in 
housing program after housing program.
  But now we are dealing with the rule. What could we do within those 
tight allocation constraints? We could change some programs that would 
make money for the government and then we could use them on programs 
such as housing for the elderly, for the disabled, for the homeless, 
for the afflicted. So we came up with some provisions that we offered 
to the Committee on Rules, provisions that have already passed the 
House of Representatives in the authorization bill, provisions that 
were praised by the chairman of the housing authorization subcommittee 
and by the chairman of the full banking and housing committee.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and I said, Let's do more for the homeless, 
for the elderly, for the disabled, and we can pay for it within this 
bill with changes that are bipartisan in nature. We were rejected, 
maybe because we were Democrats, and that is one very, very good reason 
for as unanimous opposition to this rule as we can muster.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say that the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from New York, who is a friend but who yesterday missed 
an opportunity to vote to increase funding for veterans health care by 
allowing the Department of Justice to proceed with their suit against 
the tobacco companies which, in fact, would recover billions of dollars 
because the tobacco industry lied to the American people about the 
addictive quality of its product.
  We would have been able to return that money to the Veterans' 
Administration in order to provide for health care for veterans in this 
country who are suffering. Yet, the chairman missed an opportunity to 
vote to increase funding for veterans health care, and those on the 
other side of the aisle voted against us being able to provide these 
needed funds. So it is disingenuous to talk this morning about how they 
want to try to preserve resources for veterans health care. Let the 
record show that the opportunity was there and he said no, as did 
others.
  This bill, including the issue on veterans, includes the issue of 
housing. Unfortunately, this legislation takes us in an opposite 
direction from our promise for affordable and accessible housing in 
this Nation. It says to people who want to buy a home, the American 
dream, this robs thousands of Americans by cutting first-time home 
buyer assistance by $65 million.
  It cuts 120,000 new rental assistance vouchers that would help 
hardworking, low-income Americans. It cuts community development block 
grants by $295 million, robbing cities large and small of the lifeblood 
of community projects. It has cutbacks for the most vulnerable, $180 
million in funds for local programs for the homeless. This bill 
undermines hardworking low- and moderate-income Americans struggling to 
make ends meet and it does that in order that we may provide a tax cut 
for the wealthiest Americans.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, this issue of tobacco which I suspect will dominate 
the debate today, unfortunately, because we are spending billions of 
dollars to meet our commitments to veterans, the focus will tend to be 
on the 4 or $5 million that the administration wants to take out of 
veterans medical care and spend on this lawsuit.
  I have a letter here from the American Legion. I would just like to 
read excerpts from it.
  It says:
  ``In the VA-HUD and independent agencies for fiscal year 2001 
appropriations bill is language prohibiting the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs from transferring Veterans Health Administration funds to the 
Department of Justice for the purpose of supporting tobacco litigation. 
Although we support tobacco litigation efforts as an alternative, the 
American Legion strongly supports the use of VHA funds for the 
provision of health care to veterans.
  ``The American Legion strongly encourages Congress to identify $4 
million in the projected surplus to be earmarked in the Department of 
Justice appropriations bill to pay for the VA's share of any 
litigation. VA funding should be used for its intended purpose, `to 
care for him who shall have borne the battle.' ''
  Pretty clearly, the largest veterans organization in the country does 
not want veterans medical care funds used for a lawsuit to pay lawyers. 
That is another department's responsibility. These funds are precious. 
Let us keep them where they are.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the letter that the gentleman conveniently 
cites was written by an organization that did not know that the DeLauro 
amendment yesterday would have put all of the funds recovered from that 
suit back into the agencies that we are talking about, Medicare and the 
Veterans Agency. So the gentleman can quote an irrelevant letter if he 
wants but the fact is that he cannot convince anyone that any veterans 
organization is going to oppose an action which would bring many times 
more dollars into the veterans health care program than it would ever 
cost to bring the suit in the first place.
  Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 11034]]


  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. The date of this letter is today, June 15. It is today.
  Mr. OBEY. Did the gentleman from New York tell them about the 
amendment he voted against yesterday? I bet he did not.
  Mr. WALSH. That was not the point of the letter. The point of the 
letter was do not use veterans medical care.
  Mr. OBEY. The point of the letter is to cover their tails over there. 
That is the point of the letter.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I thank the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the work of her committee on the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for all of his hard work.
  This is an excellent bill for veterans, as is the rule, because it 
provides an increase of $1.3 billion for veterans medical care next 
year. It also matches the President's budget request for veterans 
medical research and for the program that funds construction of State 
nursing homes. And it makes sure that all veterans medical care dollars 
that are collected stay within the VA. The President's budget proposed 
returning, Madam Speaker, $350 million in third-party payments to the 
Treasury. Under our bill, every dollar collected stays within the VA 
system.
  Contrary to what we may be hearing, there is no scheme in this bill 
to stop this tobacco lawsuit from going forward. This bill prevents the 
VA from diverting veterans medical care dollars from being used to pay 
for this lawsuit. Whatever the merits of the lawsuit, the money should 
not come from veterans medical care. The money can come from any other 
VA account, including general operating and administrative expenses. 
The Secretary should cut his own budget if he knew what was in it and 
reduce administrative overhead and not raid the veterans medical care 
accounts.
  This is a good bill for housing as well, especially for individuals 
with disabilities which has been a particular concern of members on 
both sides of the aisle on the committee. In the past, Congress has 
created a section 8 disability set-aside to earmark funds within this 
larger account to help individuals with disabilities find suitable 
housing. This year the President finally recognized the importance of 
this set-aside. It took a while. This bill meets his request to provide 
$25 million specifically for that purpose.
  Further, this bill again contains important language regarding 
section 811 housing for tenant-based rental assistance for individuals 
with disabilities. Since there is an insufficient supply of available, 
suitable housing, this bill requires HUD to spend 75 percent of its 
fiscal year 2001 funds to build new housing units for individuals with 
disabilities.
  This is a good bill, also, for protecting the environment. This bill 
provides an increase in funding for the Superfund hazardous waste 
cleanup program. The $1.22 billion for the Superfund is an increase of 
$2.5 million over the previous year's level. The Superfund program was 
established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials, 
spills and dangerous, uncontrolled and/or abandoned waste sites. Too 
much money has been spent on litigation, and now we are spending more 
on remediation.
  Also, this bill provides $79 million for the leaking underground 
storage tank, or LUST program, to clean up hazardous wastes that have 
leaked from underground storage facilities.

                              {time}  1000

  This is $9 million over last year's level, and $9 million is to be 
used to mitigate the problems with the underground storage tanks caused 
by the presence of NTBE in our fuel supplies, another disaster out of 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Finally, this is a good bill for scientific research, specifically 
for the National Science Foundation, which marks its 50th anniversary 
this year. With a small portion of Federal spending, this agency has 
had a powerful impact on national science and engineering. Every dollar 
invested in NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth.
  The NSF traditionally receives high marks for efficiency; less than 4 
percent of that agency's budget is spent on administration and 
management. To meet these goals in the NSF this year, the bill provides 
a record $4 billion for the National Science Foundation, a $152 million 
increase over last year. This is a good rule. It is a good bill. It 
deserves our support.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this floor extolling the 
unprecedented economic prosperity and patting ourselves on the back for 
this remarkable economy, but we ignore the reality of a housing crisis 
that we have here in the United States. In fact, the economic 
prosperity has worsened the housing crisis because fewer and fewer 
people are able to really afford to even stay in their neighborhoods, 
pay the real estate taxes, find affordable housing.
  If we look at the shelters, we will find that they are bulging, 
emergency shelters are bulging, and these are people who are working. 
These are sometimes people who are making $20,000 and even more. And 
this piece of legislation does virtually nothing to address that 
problem.
  We find that nationally 13.7 million households, that is a lot of 
people, are living in substandard housing or paying more than half of 
their income on housing. In Chicago, in my city, 35,000 families are on 
the waiting list for the Chicago Housing Authority, for public housing; 
and that will take 10 years to get through that list. Madam Speaker, 
28,000 families plus are waiting for section 8 rental vouchers, and the 
rental voucher program is closed. It will take 5 to 6 years to get 
through that program.
  The budget cuts from this year, not just under the President's, but 
$100 million from the President's requested for public housing. It cuts 
Hope 6, $10 million from last year. It cuts homeless assistance 
funding. It cuts help for people, homeless options for people with AIDS 
is even. And yet there are more people that need the service.
  So we are going to serve even fewer people. This is a serious problem 
that we are facing. We need to address it in this legislation. We are 
far from achieving our goals. I would oppose the rule and support the 
President in his pledge to veto this legislation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I have heard statements on the floor this morning that 
says this is a good bill for veterans. I defy any of you to go before 
any town meeting in this Nation and tell our veterans that this budget 
makes up for the contract that we made with them.
  We are not, my colleagues, fulfilling our contract with our veterans. 
We have asked them to sacrifice during war. We asked them to sacrifice 
in this budget process when we had deficits, and now we continue to ask 
them to sacrifice when we have surpluses. That is not right.
  This is not a good bill for our veterans. We are falling further and 
further behind each year that we have a surplus, and we do not make up 
for past injustices to our veterans.
  This budget does represent the strongest request the administration 
has ever made; but serious deficiencies are in this budget. Whether we 
look at research, whether we look at our State

[[Page 11035]]

homes, and whether we look at Montgomery GI bill benefits, we simply 
have not fulfilled our contract where our Nation's veterans.
  Let me just tell everyone about research. Yes, we have fulfilled the 
administration's request, but if we consider inflation and salary 
increases, we have fallen behind another 10 percent in this vital 
account.
  We are 10 years after the Persian Gulf War, and we do not have either 
a cause or a treatment for that affliction that is affecting hundreds 
of thousands of our veterans. We need the research. We have the money.
  Let us put this in this budget. The biggest emergency we now face in 
our recruiting and in our retention of military is the lack of 
educational benefits for our veterans. Today's Montgomery GI benefit is 
$535 a month. It is not enough to pay for any bit of college that any 
veteran wants.
  This is an emergency, I will tell my colleagues. And I have an 
amendment to deal with this later on in the discussion. And if we are 
going to make our all-volunteer force effective, we need educational 
assistance at a much higher level.
  A whole coalition across this country agreed that this budget could 
afford a Montgomery GI bill increase that would basically allow the 
average commuter student to pay for three-fourths of his or her college 
education. That would mean a rise under today's prices to $975 a month 
for our GIs.
  We can afford this amount of money. We must make that much money 
available. Our budget today makes $535 available per month for college 
education. This is not a recruitment tool. This is not an honor to our 
veterans.
  Let us see this as an emergency. Let us raise the Montgomery GI bill 
benefit to at least the $975 a month that a broad array of 
organizations has requested. Let us reject this budget. Let us honor 
our veterans in the way they should.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I also want to compliment my chairman and my ranking 
member. I serve on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies. There are a few disappointments with this bill. I have 
expressed them before. I will express them again this morning.
  I think because of the budgetary gymnastics that the majority party 
has instigated here, our chairman and the leadership of this House, 
they have had trouble adjusting to this. They have done a good job 
apparently for veterans and, particularly, for medical care for 
veterans. They have done some other good jobs, but I am concerned that 
of all the people, the needy people in this country, this particular 
bill does not address the empowerment zones. It is not funded at all.
  This is the second year that this has happened. I want to know what 
is going on here where for each year we cannot fund the empowerment 
zone, which is supposed to be the one thing that is going to help us in 
these distressed communities. We did not fund, as we should have 
either, some of the other programs that are important in city 
communities.
  Now, someone has to take notice of this. In this year of surpluses, 
we look back and we fail to try to empower people that are trying their 
very best to use the resources that are given to them both by 
government and the private sector. So it is very important that we look 
at community development. City CDBG plans, we did not receive the 
amount of money in CDBG that we should have in this day of fine monies 
and good surpluses.
  The Community Development Block Grant Fund is being raided by so many 
other programs coming in; yet we did not fund it according to what was 
promised to us by the Speaker and some other people.
  Let us look at this budget, and we know it has some very good points, 
but some of the flaws are very glaring; and I call our attention to 
them once again, and that is community development going out into the 
community, helping those people through the empowerment zones and 
through the Brownfields initiative and those kinds of things.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the problem with this bill is that it is a 
let's-pretend legislative document. It is the sixth time in a row that 
a bill was brought to the floor which is not in shape to be signed by 
the President.
  Then it is said, ``Well, this is only the second step on the way; we 
will fix it down the line.'' I mean, what that really says is, ``We 
will not take the responsibility to produce a responsible bill; 
somebody else at some other time will do it.'' That is a ``great'' 
message for this Congress to send out to the American people, somebody 
else will fix our mistakes. That is a really big confidence builder. I 
think we ought to be able to do better.
  Secondly, with respect to the comments about veterans. I have a 
letter from four veterans organizations, the AMVETS, the Disabled 
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and the acting deputy 
executive director of the VFW; and what that letter says is on behalf 
of Members of AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, we are fighting ``to oppose 
efforts to stymie amendments by the Department of Justice to advance 
the lawsuit seeking to recover health costs associated with tobacco-
related diseases.''
  It then goes on to cite the mistakes that the Congress has made in 
the past, the very actions which that side of the aisle are defending, 
and then says ``From that point forward, veterans have been denied 
compensation for these disabilities. We urge you not to make the same 
mistake again.'' And they recognize fully that you cannot run a lawsuit 
unless you pay money to run the lawsuit.
  Now, regardless of what the other side says, the game they have 
played is they have said to the Justice Department, ``No, we are not 
going to appropriate money for you to use to pursue the tobacco suit,'' 
and you are denying them the opportunity to use money from any other 
agency to bring money back into those agencies. That hurts veterans 
beyond repair.
  Madam Speaker, for the Record, I include the following letter:
                                           The Independent Budget,


                            A Budget for Veterans by Veterans,

                                                    June 13, 2000.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of members of AMVETS, 
     Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and 
     Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, we are writing 
     to oppose efforts to stymie attempts by the Department of 
     Justice to advance a lawsuit seeking to recover health care 
     costs associated with tobacco-related diseases. This matter 
     is properly before the federal courts, where it will be 
     decided on its merits. It is inappropriate for Congress to 
     attempt to undermine this litigation by manipulating the 
     resources needed to support this action.
       Two years ago, much to the outrage of veterans across the 
     country, Congress accepted a proposal by the Administration 
     to terminate compensation for veterans with tobacco-related 
     disabilities. This was done despite the fact that smoking had 
     been sanctioned, subsidized, encouraged, and part of military 
     life and culture for decades. Many in Congress refused to 
     listen to the arguments we put forth to counter this 
     proposal, in large part due to the temptation to use the 
     totally unrealistic cost savings for other purposes unrelated 
     to veterans' needs. The needs of sick and disabled veterans 
     were cast aside as soon as potential paper savings of $15.5 
     billion were transferred to help fund pork barrel highway 
     projects in that year's transportation bill. From that point 
     forward, veterans were denied compensation for these 
     disabilities. We urge you not to make the same mistake again.
       We also believe it is important to note that the same 
     statute that terminated compensation benefits for disabled 
     veterans with tobacco-related diseases (the Transportation 
     Equity Act for the 21st Century--PL 105-178) called on the 
     Government to address this issue by proceeding with the 
     lawsuit to recover costs of veterans' health care for 
     tobacco-related diseases. Section 8209 of the law (copy 
     attached) called on the ``Attorney General or the Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs, as appropriate, [to] take all steps 
     necessary

[[Page 11036]]

     to recover from tobacco companies amounts corresponding to 
     the costs which would be incurred by the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-related illnesses 
     of veterans, if such treatment were authorized by law.'' The 
     same section called on Congress to authorize the treatment of 
     tobacco-related illnesses upon recovery of such amounts. Any 
     attempt now to block the lawsuit is in direct contradiction 
     of the sense of Congress expressed in a previously approved 
     statute to help cover the cost of, and, provide health care 
     for these veterans.
       While the outcome of this litigation is in doubt, it does 
     provide a possible avenue to help defray the enormous health 
     care costs, past, present, and future, associated with 
     tobacco-related disabilities. We urge you to resist efforts 
     to attempt to restrict funding for the Department of Justice 
     to continue this important litigation.
           Sincerely,
     David E. Woodbury,
       Executive Director, AMVETS.
     Gordon H. Mansfield,
       Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
     David W. Goman,
       Executive Director, Disabled American Veterans.
     Robert E. Wallace,
       Acting Deputy Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars 
     of the United States.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is an open rule, so any Member that wants to 
offer any amendment that complies with the rules of this House may do 
so under this process.
  The VA/HUD bill which this rule makes in order provides an increase, 
an increase of $8.2 billion over last year and adds funding to a number 
of important programs, including veterans medical care, veterans 
compensation and pensions, section 8 housing, safe drinking water, 
clean water, state air grants, EPA research, pollution control grants, 
the National Science Foundation and NASA.
  Those of us who do not care for the tobacco provisions can vote to 
strike them. That is the beauty of this wide open rule. That is the 
fairness of this wide open rule.
  At the same time the bill funds these priorities, it lives within the 
parameters of the budget resolution. This balance of fiscal and social 
responsibility deserves our support. I urge a yes vote on the rule and 
the bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, here we go again.
  Every year the Majority party underfunds affordable housing in the 
appropriations process and every year the President and Secretary Cuomo 
are forced to negotiate for every last family in an omnibus bill.
  Unfortunately, it looks like we are headed down this road again.
  The VA-HUD bill before the House is cut $6.5 billion below the 
President's request and the President will rightfully veto this bill in 
its present form.
  Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot about ``Compassionate 
Conservatism'' in the press--but there is no compassion in this bill.
  Programs under VA-HUD benefit some of our nations most needy citizens 
and this bill does them wrong.
  This bill provides no new funds for elderly housing, for homeless 
assistance grants, for Housing Opportunity for People with AIDS, or for 
Native American block grants.
  Madam Speaker, the people who benefit from these programs don't have 
high paying lobbyists representing them on Capitol Hill. They don't 
have 527 groups pushing their special interests. They are simply needy 
Americans who need housing assistance.
  Furthermore, this bill cuts public housing anti-drug programs and 
capital and operating grants $120 million below last year's level.
  Madam Speaker, this country spends far too many resources on putting 
drug offenders behind bars. Cutting drug prevention efforts in public 
housing just does not make sense.
  Furthermore, this bill does damage to the enforcement of our nation's 
environmental laws by funding the EPA at $282 million less than last 
year.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad bill because it fails 
to adequately fund housing assistance for impoverished working men and 
women and it ignores America's housing crisis. Despite the shortage of 
affordable housing that plagues many cities and rural communities, this 
bill fails to fund America's tremendous housing needs. Even worse, this 
bill cuts several billion dollars from last year's budget for many 
important affordable housing programs.
  Why did the Republicans design a bill that cuts housing assistance 
for low-income working men and women? Why do Republicans ignore 
America's obvious shortage of affordable housing? Quite simply, they 
cut housing assistance to pay for tax breaks to the wealthiest 
Americans. In March, they voted $123 billion in tax breaks for the 
best-off one percent of all taxpayers--those with an annual salary 
exceeding $319,000. Just last week, the Republicans voted to repeal the 
Estate Tax--a giveaway of another $50 billion to the wealthiest 2 
percent of Americans. This GOP plan would provide about $10 billion to 
America's wealthiest 400 families.
  In sharp contrast, this bill denies housing assistance to Americans 
living in Section 8 housing and public housing, who on average earn an 
annual $7,800. It denies housing assistance for senior citizens on 
fixed incomes. It forces working men and women to choose between 
housing, health care, food, and other basic needs.
  This GOP budget is unlivable for us in San Francisco. Compared to 
President Clinton's requested budget, HUD estimates it reduces housing 
assistance for San Francisco by $10.9 million and denies affordable 
Section 8 housing vouchers to 458 San Francisco families. It denies 
housing help to 234 San Francisco residents who are homeless or are 
living with HIV/AIDS.
  This GOP budget is also unlivable around the country. At the full 
Appropriations Committee, the Ranking Democrat, Rep. Mollohan, offered 
an amendment to invest an additional $1.8 billion that would provide 
assistance across the country. I voted for this amendment. The 
Committee Republicans rejected it. This amendment would have increased 
investments to build new affordable housing; provide new affordable 
housing vouchers; provide housing to the homeless; operate, build and 
modernize public housing; promote community economic development; 
provide housing and services to seniors, individuals with disabilities, 
and individuals with HIV/AIDS. Americans need this assistance and this 
bill falls short.
  I oppose this Rule because it restricts our opportunities to improve 
the underlying bill. The GOP denied us a fair House floor vote on our 
amendments to increase housing assistance. Our amendments could have 
transferred this into a more bipartisan bill that President Clinton may 
have signed. Since Clinton has promised to veto the current bill, the 
GOP's decision ensures a veto and ensures we are wasting our time. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 182, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 278]

                               YEAS--232

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht

[[Page 11037]]


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

                               NAYS--182

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Abercrombie
     Armey
     Barrett (WI)
     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Cummings
     Danner
     Doolittle
     Hinojosa
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     Lofgren
     McKinney
     Nadler
     Sawyer
     Serrano
     Thurman
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1033

  Ms. RIVERS and Mr. DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, during the vote I was unavoidably 
detained with my staff concerning issues related to the FY 2001 Energy 
and Water Appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye'' for rollcall vote 278.

                          ____________________