[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11280-11308]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635.

                              {time}  1610


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent 
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of 
Representatives the bill, H.R. 4635, making fiscal year 2001 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and 
Urban Development and independent agencies. So that we can move 
quickly, I will keep my comments brief.
  First, let me just thank the distinguished gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his advice and counsel throughout this 
discussion. Even though we have different political persuasions, I 
think we share almost all of the same priorities in this bill, which 
makes it, as one might imagine, much less difficult to bring a bill to 
the floor.
  We do not agree on everything obviously, but I think in most cases we 
do. So we have enjoyed the benefit of his advice and the staffs have 
worked very closely together. The subcommittee and the full committee 
worked very hard to bring this bill out.
  Like most of the appropriations subcommittees, we were given a very 
tight 302(b) allocation. Nevertheless, we were able to make what I 
think are good policy and funding choices to produce a good, fair bill 
that deserves support.
  Here are some of the highlights: this bill fully funds veterans 
medical care with a $1.355 billion increase over last year's record 
level. Last year, we increased it $1.7 billion, $1.355 billion this 
year for a total of over $3 billion increase in 2 years. I think that 
shows how important this subcommittee, this full committee, and the 
House take our commitments to our veterans. It provides full funding 
for medical research, major construction, and cemetery administration 
operations.
  Just as important, we have begun an effort to conduct better 
oversight of how much medical care funding goes for medical care, per 
se, and how much goes to maintaining buildings and facilities. All 
veterans, no matter where they are located, deserve the best facilities 
that we can offer.
  We have also included language to make sure that veterans medical 
receipts stay within the VA system and do not go to the Treasury as was 
suggested by the Administration.
  Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are fully funded, and we have 
included language to push the Department to do a better, faster job of 
getting funds out of Washington to the people who need them most. HUD's 
record in this regard is not one to be proud of. We had 247,000 section 
8 vouchers go begging last year because HUD did not get the job done. 
So we have accounted for that and still have fully funded the section 8 
requirements.
  We have essentially level funded the Community Development Block 
Grant entitlement programs, trimming them by less than 1 percent. We 
have level funded or only slightly reduced most other HUD programs, 
making sure that HUD was not using the bank to pay for other programs 
as it did last year.
  AmeriCorps has been zeroed out. I am sure that will be a topic for 
discussion in conference and in consultation with the White House. In 
this bill, there is no funding.
  EPA's operating programs have been level funded while various State 
grant programs, which assist the States in implementing Federal laws, 
have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund 
program, gutted in the President's budget request, has been restored to 
$1.2 billion. That is real commitment on the part of Congress to 
support cleaner water and to improve the environment of this country, 
an area where I think the Administration is sorely lacking, while State 
and local air grants from section 319 non-point source pollution grants 
have been increased significantly.
  Perhaps most important, we have proposed $245 million, more than 
double last year's level and $85 million more than the Administration's 
request, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer 
the States the maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL 
issues facing the States.
  To help the States deal with the MTBE problems caused by leaking 
underground storage tank facilities, that is a gasoline additive that 
has recently been banned by the EPA, we have upped the account at EPA 
by $9 million over last year and $7 million over the budget request.
  CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been proposed for an 
increase over last year's funding level. They are doing a good job. 
They deserve our support; we provided it.

                              {time}  1615

  Likewise, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, perhaps the most 
productive and most efficient Federal organization dealing with 
housing, has been provided their full funding level of $90 million. 
Again, they have earned and deserve our support. We should reward 
positive performance.
  The National Science Foundation has received an increase of $167 
million over last year's level, putting them over $4 billion, their 
largest funding level ever.
  Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of $113 million, 
their first increase in several years.
  Mr. Chairman, there is one point regarding this bill that really 
needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we faced a tight 
allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that this bill 
received an allocation that is nearly $5 billion above last year. I 
would like to try to set the record straight. The reality is that our 
new allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is 
that CBO's freeze level for this budget was $76.9 billion. We have, 
therefore, a net increase of just $1.1 billion over last year.
  I hasten to add that that increase has been totally absorbed by VA 
medical care, $1.355 billion over last year, a Section 8 housing 
increase of nearly $2 billion, and increases provided for National 
Science Foundation and NASA over last year's level. Nearly every other 
program in this bill was either level funded or reduced slightly so 
that we could meet these necessary increases and still stay within our 
allocation.

[[Page 11281]]

  I have to say that it would be very difficult to get this bill this 
far without the support and assistance of my ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the rest of this hard-
working subcommittee and our staffs, and we have wonderful staffs. 
While we do not always agree on every issue, every effort has been made 
on both sides to continue the subcommittee's strong history of 
bipartisan cooperation in the crafting of this bill. I truly appreciate 
the gentleman's help and close working relationship.
  Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and 
Independent Agencies bill. It is a good fair bill, with solid policy 
direction, while staying completely within our budget authority and 
outlay allocations. I strongly encourage the support of this body in 
moving this measure forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin 
by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their 
courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process. 
Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I 
applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt.
  The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for 
veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for 
providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8 
housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill, 
the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities.
  We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his 
listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because 
of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill 
reflects, missed a lot of opportunities.
  Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by 
young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out 
totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential 
veto.
  Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic 
research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508 
million less than that requested by the President for the National 
Science Foundation.
  Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and 
technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill 
abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of 
reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and 
reduce the cost of access to space.
  Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable 
housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing 
assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development 
Block Grants and public housing below the current year level.
  And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration 
calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes, 
floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 
billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to 
respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters.
  The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or 
less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which 
this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the 
chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more 
resources for medical research at the Veterans Administration or for 
construction of State-needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why 
are we not doing more to expand the supply of affordable housing and 
helping our Nation's homeless? Why are we not doing more for 
environmental restoration and protection? And why are we not doing more 
to explore space and perform the basic scientific research that is 
directly responsible for our current economic boom?
  We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps 
growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus 
to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided, 
instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at 
upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong 
last year, and it is wrong now.
  Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The 
appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low 
allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they 
reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however, 
we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the 
question of why we go through this exercise at all.
  I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York 
has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However, 
I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do.
  This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed 
opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and 
sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this 
country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer 
infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of 
modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure 
our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes 
on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at 
a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when 
will we?
  During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered 
several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas. 
Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor 
thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and 
tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation.
  No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I 
believe that this process should move forward. It is also important 
that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to 
meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant 
area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has 
been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great 
needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources 
before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members.
  The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect 
to see something markedly different than what we have before us today. 
I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I 
hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect 
the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means 
to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less 
fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in 
research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion 
in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our 
ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our 
subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I 
also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to 
maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious 
housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall 
within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National

[[Page 11282]]

Science Foundation and NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
among a number of Federal agencies under our committee's jurisdiction.
  Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so 
many national and regional priorities within a limited budget 
allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds, 
$4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in 
fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year.
  That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads 
above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with 
over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last 
year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8 
renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is 
section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for 
individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies, 
homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with 
AIDS, known as HOPA.
  This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of 
housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this 
committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark 
some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable 
housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed 
with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities 
set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's 
long overdue request for this purpose.
  Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75 
percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on 
new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing 
available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to 
emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the 
administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill 
insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing 
units.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the 
administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the 
clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over 
the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this 
remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air 
grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all 
increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases.

                              {time}  1630

  The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for 
the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year. 
Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous 
materials in many waste sites around the country that have been 
abandoned.
  As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having 
more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional 
district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to 
emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of 
costly, protracted lawsuits.
  The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious 
problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the 
use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE.
  During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I 
raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive. 
While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet 
Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had 
begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country.
  California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500, 
New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected 
adversely.
  As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took 
steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill builds upon that decision 
by providing $9 million for efforts to correct leaking underground 
storage tank problems associated with this additive.
  Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and 
Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the 
National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this 
year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of 
$167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year.
  It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4-
billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This 
agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of 
national science and engineering in every State and institution of 
higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its 
worth in economic growth.
  I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of 
the committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a debate or part of the debate 
about our national priorities and our national values and it helps 
decide who we are going to put first in this society.
  This Congress has committed itself to pass a large number of very 
large tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts are aimed at the most well-
off people in our society. The wealthiest 2 percent will get a huge 
percentage of those tax cuts. And our ability to afford those tax cuts 
is based on the assumption by the majority that over the next few years 
we will cut $125 billion below current services, below existing 
purchasing power levels, a whole host of programs: education programs, 
health programs, housing programs, land acquisition programs, science 
programs, all the rest.
  That is really what this debate is all about. Because this is one of 
the appropriation bills that is cut by a large amount below the 
President's budget in order to pretend that we can squeeze out enough 
room for those huge tax cuts aimed at the most well-off people in this 
society. And I do not believe we ought to do that.
  I think we need to look at this budget in terms of what we need 10 
years from now because this is a growing society, it is a growing 
population. We have growing needs, we are going to have more people who 
need housing, we are going to have more people in high schools, we are 
going to have more people in college, we are going to have more needs, 
and these bills are not responding to them.
  Some examples of that lack of response are as follows: As has been 
indicated, the distinguished chairman has done the best he can given 
the budget ceiling which was assigned to his subcommittee and this bill 
does contain a welcome $1.35 billion increase for veterans' medical 
care. It is about time that both parties get off their duff on that. 
But it fails to adequately provide for several other priorities for 
veterans.
  It does freeze funds for veterans' medical and prosthetic research. 
It cuts grants for construction of State veterans homes one-third below 
current year levels and does some other things that we are not happy 
about. It needlessly creates a political confrontation with the 
President by terminating the Corporation for National and Community 
Service, including the AmeriCorps program. Everyone on this floor knows 
the President is not going to sign this bill with that provision.
  For housing, it appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing 
assistance vouchers proposed by the administration. It cuts Community 
Development Block Grants $276 million below the current year level and 
$395 million below the President's request. It freezes funding for 
homeless assistance. It provides a number of other cuts on the 
environmental front and on the NASA front.
  I happen to believe the most serious cut of all in terms of our long-
term economic health is what this bill does to the National Science 
Foundation because it falls short of the President's

[[Page 11283]]

request by $508 billion. And I think it is essential to understand that 
the National Science Foundation does much of the basic scientific 
research, upon which all our other technological and medical progress 
is based.
  We have had economists estimate that at least half of our economic 
productivity in the past 50 years can be attributed to technological 
innovation and the science that has supported that innovation. And yet, 
this bill is a giant missed opportunity because it cuts the President's 
budget with respect to that program.
  It falls $508 million below the President's request. And then, in 
addition, it takes actions which, in concert with other actions taken 
by other subcommittees, slowly but surely fences in the Justice 
Department so that neither they nor any other agency of Government can 
mount an effective lawsuit against the tobacco companies for lying 
through their teeth to the American people for the past 40 years about 
whether or not their product caused cancer. And so, the Government has 
shelled out billions of dollars in Medicare, in veterans' health costs 
to deal with health consequences of that product and the lying selling 
of that product to the American people. And I think that needs to be 
corrected.
  So these are a number of reasons why, although I have profound 
respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and consider him to 
be one of the finest people in this institution, I cannot support the 
work product that the budget resolution has forced him to come up with.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for 
yielding on my behalf, and I rise in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Walsh) for all the great effort and the great work that he has done as 
chairman of this subcommittee. I want to thank, also, the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has teamed 
up with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to make this thing 
work.
  I want to further thank the staff, led by Frank Cushing, for all the 
great efforts that they have made on this legislation. It is not easy, 
and I know that; and most people do not know how much time staff puts 
into the effort that brings forth a bill.
  This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of 
diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. 
And there is a lot of distance in between. It is not an easy task to 
bring this wide range of interest into a single bill. However, the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have a working relationship 
that I think makes this all possible.
  H.R. 4635 is a good bill and keeps us within the budget resolution. I 
would point out that the product before us contains, as undoubtedly has 
been commented on, no Member earmarks. In this respect, it is eminently 
fair because there are no winners or losers.
  The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation 
produced under very difficult circumstances and is within, again, the 
budget resolution. It responsibly provides a $1.3-billion increase for 
veterans' medical health care, fully funds section 8 housing, and 
provides sound investments in research-intensive agencies, such as NASA 
and, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) just 
mentioned, the National Science Foundation.
  As this process moves forward, there will be plenty of opportunities 
for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the 
President finally signs the bill. I would implore my colleagues not to 
let perfection be the enemy of good. This is a good and responsible 
bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it.
  Again, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted 
for crafting this piece of legislation under these circumstances. He 
has worked in good faith with the ranking member on the other side in a 
bipartisan spirit to form a bill that the House has now before it.
  My colleagues, this is a fair bill and there will be time to 
strengthen it further as the process moves along. So I urge its 
support.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak today on one part of the bill before us, title 
I, the bill funding the Department of Administration, and I speak as 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs in this House.
  Now, all of us on this side of the aisle have spoken of our deep 
respect for the chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but we 
also have taken issue with the sense that we are doing all we can do in 
this bill, in this case for our Nation's veterans.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks in a passive sense that 
we have been allocated a number. This is an active decision by this 
House to allocate certain figures, and this House can do what it will 
with regard to the budget.
  As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, we have 
spoken about our priorities. This budget ranks veterans' affairs, I am 
afraid, very low in the priorities.
  The chair said that this is fully funded, medical care for our 
veterans is fully funded. I am not sure what that means, but I would 
challenge my colleagues to go to any town hall meeting of veterans in 
this Nation and tell them that their benefits and their health care is 
fully funded.
  The gentleman from Michigan said this is a good and responsible 
budget. I take issue. It is not a good budget. It is an irresponsible 
budget. We are reneging on our commitment to our Nation's veterans, Mr. 
Speaker. We have asked our veterans to sacrifice in war. When we had 
deficits, we asked our veterans to take cuts because we had to share 
the sacrifice of cutting those deficits. But now that we have 
surpluses, it is time to make up on those commitments and start 
fulfilling those commitments.
  Many of our national cemeteries are a national disgrace. The waiting 
list for our veterans to see medical specialists goes months and months 
and months to get adjudication. Their benefits claims may take years. 
This is not a good and responsible budget. We are falling behind, Mr. 
Speaker, on medical research for veterans. We are falling behind on our 
commitment to fund our State veterans' homes. We are falling behind on 
helping our homeless veterans. We are falling behind on providing 
educational benefits to those veterans.

                              {time}  1645

  The Montgomery GI bill is almost worthless in terms of its spending 
power in today's market.
  I am going to submit amendments, Mr. Chairman, to cover some of these 
shortcomings, but I want to speak on a couple now. We are not 
adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who 
served in the Gulf War and who now suffer from various diagnosed and 
undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years, Mr. Chairman, 
since the men and women of our Armed Forces were sent to the gulf, yet 
they do not know what caused their illness, and we have no treatment 
for it. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and appropriate 
research. This budget does virtually nothing for those veterans.
  I speak today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Independent Budget, a 
budget that was propounded by a coalition of all the veterans 
organizations in this Nation. It is a responsible, professional budget. 
They show that this budget falls behind on our commitment by a minimum 
of $1.5 billion. It points out that as our veteran population ages, the 
need for long-term care increases. One means of providing that is 
through our funding of State veterans homes. In fact, a new home just 
opened in my congressional district; and already

[[Page 11284]]

there is a waiting list of hundreds and hundreds. Other areas should 
have the same opportunity as the veterans in my San Diego region with 
the opening of this new home. Yet this budget has a decrease in funding 
for State homes.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's veterans require an educational benefit 
that will actually allow them to attend college. I will propose such an 
amendment when the time comes. We have fallen behind on trying to deal 
with our homeless veterans. Thirty to 40 percent of those on the street 
are veterans. This is no way to treat those who served for us. We 
should increase that. This budget does not.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of people in this Nation who 
served during World War II and were drafted into Armed Forces, Filipino 
veterans who helped us win the war in the Pacific. They are in their 
70s and 80s. We need to provide them the health care that was taken 
away by this Congress more than 50 years ago. $30 million is all that 
is required to provide this health care. I will submit an amendment to 
do just that.
  Mr. Chairman, we are falling farther and farther behind with this 
budget. It is time to reverse our priorities. It is time to recognize 
the heroism and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Let us truly fully 
fund this budget. Let us truly make this a good and responsible budget. 
Let us do better for our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to discuss some of the issues that were just raised.
  I will be brief. I am not going to fight every battle and counter 
every argument, but I do think it needs to be said that we are not 
falling behind. We are not falling behind in our commitments to our 
veterans. In fact, the strides that this Congress has made in the last 
2 years, $1.7 billion last year, almost $1.4 billion this year, that is 
over a $3 billion commitment in a $20 billion health care allocation. 
That is a profound commitment to our veterans. I do not believe any 
Congress in the recent or distant past has made that sort of 
commitment. I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we 
are falling behind. If anything, we are quickly catching up if not 
pulling ahead. But to say we are falling behind, I think, gives grist 
for the mill for those uninformed people out there who are saying we 
are not keeping our commitments to the veteran. I strongly disagree.
  On the issue of the G.I. Bill, those benefits are mandatory. The 
gentleman sits on the committee of authorization. That is where that 
issue belongs, not here in the committee on appropriations. Those are 
mandatory benefits, not within our purview to determine allocation of 
funds. It is mandatory.
  Lastly, the GAO study says that the Veterans Administration is 
wasting $1 million a day through poor administration. That is over $300 
million a year wasted. We cannot afford to have that waste continue. 
Clearly, the Congress can do better; but the administration can, too.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has 
done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can 
to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want 
to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the 
Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a 
time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are 
higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in 
the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important 
veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking.
  Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very 
partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that 
each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very 
important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served 
this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to 
be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in 
our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the 
drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and 
saved this country from various battles across the history of our 
country. But it is not funded properly.
  In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will 
we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with 
shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in 
our country who have served this country well.
  I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in 
America, the least of these who find themselves living in public 
housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public 
housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a 
time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now 
falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7 
billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to 
today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met.
  The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district, 
and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the 
previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We 
are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing 
the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have 
applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime, 
free from other kinds of negative things in our budget.
  I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has 
done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is 
really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets. 
There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our 
responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In 
public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress.
  I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through 
conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is 
going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have 
to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and 
this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening, 
let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak 
out for them.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first 
appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) because I think they 
probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I 
still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs, 
this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President 
proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation 
this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an 
agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nation's 
capabilities in science and engineering research and education.
  The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million. 
This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the 
House. It also ignores the well-known connection between research and 
economic development. I characterize the bill as shortsighted because 
it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science 
and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the well-
being of our citizens. Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic 
productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the 
science that has supported it. The social rate

[[Page 11285]]

of return for basic research performed at academic institutions has 
been found to be at least 28 percent.
  Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns 
to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent 
example of the Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science 
Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such 
research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic 
increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The 
most important is also the least quantifiable, that is, the lost 
opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued.
  Last year alone, the National Science Foundation could not fund 3,800 
proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer 
reviewers. The budget increase requested for fiscal year 2001 has 
greatly reduced the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to 
rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in 
the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposal was 
designated for the core research programs of the foundation. This new 
funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as 
increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative 
value of National Science Foundation awards, thereby adding to the 
overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is, 
researchers must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding 
for their research projects.
  If NSF were to be allowed to reach its goal of increasing average 
grant size to $108,000 and grant duration to 3 years, it estimates the 
savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50 
million. Of course, this is only a portion of the potential savings 
since it does not include reductions in the time for proposal reviews 
and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few 
grants.
  Overall, the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will 
result in more than 4,000 fewer awards for state-of-the-art research 
and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in 
exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as information 
technology, the nanoscale science and engineering, and environmental 
research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries 
with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society.
  The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18,000 fewer 
researchers, educators, and students receiving NSF support. This is a 
direct, and negative, effect on the shortages projected in the high-
tech workforce. It will reduce the number of well-trained scientists 
and engineers needed for the Nation's future.
  Finally, I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the 
funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many 
Members of this House in the development and widespread use of 
information technology.
  In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill 
authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among seven agencies for 
information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multi-
agency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources. 
H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSF's part of this initiative by over 
$154 million, or by more than 20 percent.
  The need for the major new investment in information technology 
research was advocated by the President's Information Technology 
Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: ``Unless immediate 
steps are taken to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area, 
we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of 
economic progress over the coming decades.''
  I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for the research that will 
lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials, 
environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent 
industries.
  The economic growth that has been fueled by advances in basic 
research will be endangered because of the failure of this bill to 
provide adequate resources for the math, science, and engineering 
research and education activities of the National Science Foundation. 
This is shameful and irresponsible.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have 
increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may 
point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of 
this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along, 
that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have 
done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this 
Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care 
in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike 
the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from 
third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget 
within the VA system. The President's budget proposed that the first 
$350 million collected as a result of changes under the Veterans 
Millennium Health Care Act signed into law and passed last year be 
returned to the Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration.

                              {time}  1700

  This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the 
VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a 
responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the 
growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the 
liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver 
failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number 
of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with 
the Vietnam-Era part of our history.
  In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for 
testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under 
discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However, 
during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo 
West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal 
year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand 
was not there.
  Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary 
statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known 
information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the 
VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in 
March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that 
tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent 
of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey, 
the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the 
national average.
  The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases 
money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and 
this is a budget that points us in the right direction.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our 
priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation 
to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect, 
$200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this 
House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless, 
the judgment of this House.
  In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to 
strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation 
against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a 
judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion 
to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct 
of that industry.
  Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill 
and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a

[[Page 11286]]

couple of weeks we will have given $200 billion to 400 families by 
eliminating the estate tax, and we will refuse to bring in potentially 
$300 billion that can be used for veterans' health, Indian health 
services, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, so many things 
where we are always saying we do not have the money to fund it.
  The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our 
colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no 
misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that 
would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for 
management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation 
against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times 
over that amount back to the veterans' health program.
  Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health 
program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate 
fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the 
veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued.
  They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to 
meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit 
support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War 
Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the 
groups want this lawsuit to go forward.
  Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the 
support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at 
all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this 
country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of 
tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and 
the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke.
  They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead 
them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they 
manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking.
  I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments, 
that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that 
rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be 
used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to 
the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will 
hear more about it later.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 30 
seconds remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, many requests that 
would be more than 30 seconds; and, therefore, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the 
other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need 
for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one 
of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take 
money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD.
  Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can 
find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this 
country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our 
competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase 
in NSF funding.
  Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let 
us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let 
us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic 
research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital 
to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments to make. I think 
we can conclude our general debate and move into amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record.

[[Page 11287]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.001



[[Page 11288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.002



[[Page 11289]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.003



[[Page 11290]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.004



[[Page 11291]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.005



[[Page 11292]]

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider 
H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban 
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to 
highlight several features of this legislation that are important to 
our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's 
reformulated gasoline mandate.


                      national science foundation

  Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the 
requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17, 
2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not 
authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together 
with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R. 
2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and 
Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards 
Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to 
about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level.
  While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million, 
NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would 
have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level 
requested, especially given the large increases planned for the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH).
  Indeed, I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the 
intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical 
research be more widely recognized. Today, we are in the midst of one 
of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes 
much to technological changes driven by the basic scientific research 
conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which 
provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research 
supported by NSF.
  Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their 
underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators 
under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just 
one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing 
revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and 
computational sciences as the biological sciences.
  I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think 
we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the 
other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in 
ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining 
diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science 
Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important 
that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of 
scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular 
area or areas relative to other.''
  If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area, 
I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short 
shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future 
economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs.


             national aeronautics and space administration

  While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch 
Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714 
billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year.
  I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee 
leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy 
initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of 
space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying 
committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund 
the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use 
of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to 
withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until 
some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully 
answered.
  As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered 
some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its 
implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe 
NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and 
builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency 
oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of 
risk.
  Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics 
activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its 
limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the 
jurisdiction of other federal agencies.
  The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to 
move our space program to the next level of achievement. The 
Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first 
instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to 
a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a 
cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate 
safeguards to protect the federal investment.
  I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to 
try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference 
Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that 
goal because I believe the program is important.


                  EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate

  Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone 
levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At 
the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had 
concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost, 
potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage. 
Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel, 
have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon 
Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it 
has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water 
contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded 
that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any 
impact on improving air quality.
  Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas 
prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new 
requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear 
correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the 
RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has 
refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected 
opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has 
refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite 
repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers, 
and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant 
a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price 
gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be 
lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near.
   EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal 
to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is 
troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions 
on this issue.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations 
bill. H.R. 4635, which we are considering today is woefully inadequate 
and fails to address America's needs in housing, economic development, 
veterans, and science and technology programs. This is particularly 
distressing in these times of unprecedented prosperity and rising 
surpluses.
  Among many unacceptable funding provisions, the bill freezes funding 
for veterans medical research, cuts grants for construction of state 
veterans homes $30 million below the current year level, and provides 
$56 million less than requested to improve processing of applications 
for benefits.
  The bill appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance 
vouchers proposed by the Administration. Further, it cuts the Community 
Development Block Grant by $275 million below the current year level.
  And while it provides an increase for research at the National 
Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's requested 
increased by $508 million. The bill also fails to adequately provide 
for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science and 
Technology programs, which the bill underfunds by $323 million. These 
cuts I believe would jeopardize the future of our space research 
programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on 
earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our 
universe.
  Even more distressing, the bill only appropriates $300 million of the 
$2.9 billion requested by the Administration for the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund, thereby jeopardizing FEMA's 
ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters.
  Finally, the bill once again seeks to completely eliminate the 
AmeriCorps National Service program. As a result a great number of 
important projects that foster involvement and learning in technology 
by children and adults and programs that bring technology to 
underserved populations and address weaknesses in our economy, will go 
unfunded. One of these is Project FIRST (Fostering Instructional Reform 
Through Service and Technology Initiatives), whose role it is to 
increase

[[Page 11293]]

access to technology and its educational benefits in the nation's 
least-served schools. Another way AmeriCorps is involved with 
technology is through TechCorps, a national non-profit organization 
that is driven and staffed primarily with technologically proficient 
volunteers. However, these cuts ensure that TechCorps will not receive 
AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers to bring this program to underserved, low-
income communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the cuts in this bill would move America in 
the wrong direction. Despite our unprecedented economic prosperity, 
there are significant unmet needs in our nation's communities and in 
our science and research programs. This bill is part of the majority's 
strategy of financing tax cuts targeted to the well off by cutting 
domestic spending. We should not be placing the burden of our 
prosperity on the backs of the people who will suffer most from cutting 
programs that meet vital housing, economic development, emergency, and 
research needs.
  I will strongly oppose this bill because it fails to meet our 
responsibilities to war veterans, to provide relief and recovery after 
natural disasters, to provide service to the community, to protect the 
environment, to help meet housing needs, and to undertake the essential 
research and development that is fueling the magnificent growth 
achieved by the American economy and enjoyed by the American public in 
the last eight years.
  We can do better, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the 
Committee's bill includes $10 million to help bridge the Digital Divide 
in Indian Country. This funding will encourage Native Americans to 
pursue degrees in information technology and other science and 
technology fields and will build the capacity of tribally controlled 
community colleges--and their K-12 feeder schools--to offer high-
quality science and technology classes.
  According to the National Telecommunications Information 
Administration (NTIA), poor rural Native Americans are being left 
behind when it comes to even the most basic telecommunications 
services. According to one NITA study, 76% of rural households with 
incomes of less than $5,000 have phones, but only 46% of individuals at 
the same income level on tribal lands have a telephone connection.
  Oklahoma is home to 37 federally-recognized tribal nations and to 
more than 254,000 tribal members. The Cherokee Nation, located in 
Tahlequah, is the second largest tribe in the United States with 
207,790 members.
  That is why I appreciate funding of the $10 million tribal college 
technology program in the FY 2001 National Science Foundation budget. 
At this point, it is uncertain whether the Senate will also fund this 
critical initiative. I hope Congress will work to preserve funding for 
this important program as the FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill moves 
forward so that Native Americans in Oklahoma and across America can get 
the education and training at tribally-controlled community colleges 
they need to compete and succeed in the New Economy.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4635, the FY 
2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill. I want to express my concern that the 
bill provides zero increases for the HUD Indian housing programs. The 
budget provides $693 million for FY 2001, which is the same amount as 
the FY 2000 enacted level, and it does not provide any funding for any 
of the new initiatives proposed by the administration.
  The President requested $730 million for Indian housing programs, and 
the budget we are considering today slashes the President's request by 
$37 million.
  Mr. Chairman, Native Americans continued to have the poorest housing 
in this country.
  The National American Indian Housing Council's fact sheet on Indian 
housing reveals that--
  the poverty rate for rural Native Americans is 37 percent, a rate 
that is higher than any other racial/ethnic group,
  69 percent of Native Americans in tribal areas live in overcrowded 
homes,
  21 percent of homes in tribal areas are overcrowded as compared with 
the national average of 2.7 percent, and
  16.5 percent of Native American households in tribal areas are 
without complete plumbing.
  With that kind of data supporting the need for more Federal funding 
for Indian housing, we should not support a bill that provides zero 
funding for the people that need the funding most. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the FY 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, despite the efforts of my 
Chairman, who did the level best he could with the subcommittee funding 
allocation that was given to him, there are numerous funding problems 
in this bill.
  But I rise to express my concerns in particular about the lack of 
funding to help the poorest of the poor obtain decent housing.
  We are living in the period of the greatest economic prosperity in 
our nation's history.
  But even this economic boom has created a housing crisis for many 
Americans.
  In its State of the Cities Report, HUD reported that serious housing 
problems are increasing at almost twice the rate of population growth. 
These are the people who pay more than a quarter of their incomes for 
housing, and the people who have no choice but to live in unsafe or 
substandard housing.
  There are over 5 million families who pay more than 50%--half their 
income--on housing. This number is the highest in the nation's history, 
and unfortunately, the number continues to grow.
  Worst-case housing needs have been three times as high for families 
with full-time wage earners than for other families, and particularly 
high for minority families.
  Housing rental assistance is an important solution to the housing 
affordability problem. HUD's incremental vouchers help families to find 
homes--families that are currently homeless, living in substandard 
housing or paying more than half of their income in rent.
  Vouchers work: the average waiting period for a Section 8 voucher is 
about two years. In virtually every urban area anywhere in the country, 
people making the minimum wage cannot afford even a medium priced 
apartment rental. Housing vouchers make that possible, and they do it 
using private sector housing.
  Yet the bill does not fund the President's request for 120,000 
additional incremental housing vouchers. In fact, despite its claims, 
it is debatable whether or not this bill will provide HUD with any new 
vouchers to help our families find safe, decent and affordable housing.
  The bill as written claims to allow HUD to provide up to 20,000 
additional vouchers.
  But this is just ``funny math,'' or ``creative accounting'' because 
these additional vouchers are only funded in the bill through overly 
rosey and optimistic estimates of recaptures of unused Section 8 funds.
  HUD will only have these vouchers available if the Department 
recaptures more funds than the amount that HUD itself says can be 
recaptured.
  HUD does not even expect these recaptured funds to be available.
  We would never treat rich people this way; you can bet they get hard 
cash to meet their needs. Yet poor families are shunted aside with a 
promise that may not even pan out.
  Refusing to provide additional incremental vouchers means that 
families will have to continue to live in substandard housing or pay 
excessive portions of family income toward rent.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that HUD needs to spend the funds it has 
recaptured. I understand that HUD has recaptured all the funding it 
legally can and is taking additional steps to increase voucher 
utilization. For example:
  HUD is instituting a Section 8 management assessment program to 
identify poor performers.
  The Department is providing for the transfer of unused funds to a 
public housing agency that can use them right away.
  HUD has also proposed the use of a voucher success fund in rental 
markets where public funding agencies are not fully using available 
funds.
  Denying incremental vouchers denies families opportunities for safe, 
decent housing and affordable housing.
  What this bill does is punish the majority of public housing 
authorities--that are providing critical assistance to families and 
need more vouchers--because a few public housing agencies have 
performed poorly.
  If funding for the President's proposed additional 120,000 
incremental vouchers is not provided, there is a very real danger that 
this funding will never be made up in subsequent appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, the only way that this bill can be repaired is for the 
House leadership to provide the additional needed funding.
  It makes no sense to underfund such an important bill when the nation 
is running record budget surpluses and the needs of the poor in this 
country are unmet.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his 
support for H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. First, this Member would like 
to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies from New York (Mr. Walsh), the 
distinguished Ranking Member from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and all 
members of the Subcommittee for the work they did under the tight 
302(b) allocation.
  This Member would like to focus his remarks on the following four 
areas: Housing, Community Development Fun--Community

[[Page 11294]]

Development Block Grant (CDBG), America's Private Investment Companies 
(APICs) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National 
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on repetitive loss.


                                housing

  First, this Member would like to comment favorably upon the treatment 
of the Section 8 and Section 202 programs, which were funded as 
adequately as we can under the budgetary restraints. The Subcommittee 
correctly recognizes the demographic shift to a more aging population 
with the funding for Section 8 contract renewals.
  In addition, this Member commends the $6 million appropriation for 
the Section 184, American Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program, which 
this Member created in consultation with a range of Indian Housing 
specialists. This seems to be an excellent new program which this 
Member says without appropriate modesty and recognition of his 
colleagues support, is providing privately financed homes through a 
government guarantee program for Indian families who are otherwise 
unable to secure conventional financing due to the trust status of 
Indian reservation land. The above appropriation supports loan 
guarantees totaling $72 million which should assist an estimated 20,000 
families.
  Moreover, this Member would like to specifically comment the 
Subcommittee for reducing duplicative efforts of the Federal Government 
in rural housing and economic development. After a funding level of $25 
million in fiscal year 2000 for rural housing and economic development 
efforts in HUD, the Subcommittee appropriated $20 million for fiscal 
year 2001 for HUD's rural housing and economic development efforts. 
This Member would prefer that no money is appropriated for HUD for this 
purpose.
  In fact, this Member testified before the VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in opposition to HUD's duplicative 
efforts in rural housing. As a long-term advocate of rural housing 
during his tenure in the House, this Member believes that we need to be 
careful of duplication in the efforts of the Federal Government in 
rural housing and economic development. In the past, the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) through their Rural Development 
offices has successfully implemented numerous rural housing and 
economic development programs. As a result, this Member disagrees with 
HUD's efforts to duplicate USDA Rural Development staff.


                   community development fund (cdbg)

  Second, this Member would like to emphasize a concern over the VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill which in large part 
results from budgetary restraints. The Community Development Fund, 
which includes the CDBG program, is provided $4.5 billion, which is 
$295 million less than the fiscal year 2000 level. This reduction is of 
deep concern to this Member. The CDBG program has been a model of 
local-Federal partnership.
  The CDBG program not only is valuable to the larger entitlement 
cities, it gives assistance to those communities under 50,000 through 
state administering agencies. It is a government program with minimal 
overhead and bureaucracy. Moreover, CDBG has provided invaluable 
dollars to cities and rural communities for such things as affordable 
housing, public infrastructure, and economic development.


                                 apics

  Third, this Member does applaud the Subcommittee for providing no new 
budget authority to HUD for the APIC program. APICs would be companies 
which are licensed by the Department of Housing and Urban development 
(HUD) pursuant to a national competition for venture capital firms. 
Currently, HUD does not have the proper capability to administer APIC. 
To illustrate this, the Inspector General has labeled HUD a ``troubled 
agency.'' Rather than focusing on new initiatives like APIC, HUD should 
focus on its existing projects.


                          nfip repetitive loss

  Lastly, this Member supports the language included in the 
appropriations measure which provides FEMA with up to $50 million to be 
obligated for pre-disaster mitigation activities and repetitive loss 
buyouts following disaster declarations. This Member believes that this 
appropriation is just a first step in eliminating repetitive loss under 
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administered by FEMA. In 
fact, this Member has introduced a measure, H.R. 2728, Two-Floods-and-
You-are-Out-of-the-Taxpayer's-Pocket-Act, which authorizes FEMA to 
offer buy-outs to repetitive loss properties and to increase the NFIP 
rates to actuarial for those properties who refuse a publicly funded 
mitigation offer.
  Because of the necessity to fund important housing and community 
development programs, this Member would encourage his colleagues to 
support H.R. 4635, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
Act.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4635

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for 
     sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:

                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                    Veterans Benefits Administration


                       compensation and pensions

       For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of 
     veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as 
     authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 
     53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans 
     as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and 
     61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other 
     officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and 
     certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life 
     insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of Article 
     IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, as 
     amended, and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 
     U.S.C. 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, 
     and 61; 50 U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 
     735; 76 Stat. 1198), $22,766,276,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,419,000 of 
     the amount appropriated shall be reimbursed to ``General 
     operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for necessary 
     expenses in implementing those provisions authorized in the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and in the 
     Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters 51, 53, 
     and 55), the funding source for which is specifically 
     provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation: 
     Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an 
     actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to 
     ``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding 
     of individual medical facilities for nursing home care 
     provided to pensioners as authorized.


                         readjustment benefits

       For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits 
     to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 
     chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61, 
     $1,664,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds shall be available to pay any court order, court 
     award or any compromise settlement arising from litigation 
     involving the vocational training program authorized by 
     section 18 of Public Law 98-77, as amended.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Filner:
       Page 3, after line 21, insert the following:
       In addition, for ``Readjustment Benefits'', $900,000,000 
     for enhanced educational assistance under chapter 30 of title 
     38, United States Code (the Montgomery GI Bill), in 
     accordance with the provisions of H.R. 4334 of the 106th 
     Congress as introduced on April 13, 2000: Provided, That the 
     Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: 
     Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to 
     the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that 
     is included in an official budget request transmitted by the 
     President to the Congress and that is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A).

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page 11295]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for his courtesy in 
hearing this amendment.
  I have a series of amendments, Mr. Chairman, that speak to the former 
statements or earlier statements of the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) to the notion that we are not falling behind, the 
gentleman says, in our commitment to our Nation's veterans.
  It is true that in the last 2 years we have upgraded our spending 
over the previous year, but that was after a decade or more of flatline 
budgets. We have not caught up. I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) to visit cemeteries around this country, which are 
deteriorating. I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to sit for 
months and months with our veterans who must wait for doctors' 
appointments, who must wait for years to get their disability claims 
adjudicated, who are trying to go to college; and that is the nature of 
the amendment I have before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1981, the education benefit to our veterans which 
allowed them to go to college was $493 a month. 20 years later, with 
incredible soaring costs of education and associated expenses, we are 
paying only $20 more per month.
  I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is that not falling 
behind? Here we have an amendment to catch up, to make sure that the 
Montgomery GI bill named after our former Member and great chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, that the goal of the Montgomery GI 
bill, to provide meaningful readjustment benefits to discharged 
Members, while also giving military recruiters an effective tool to 
support the concept of an all volunteer force.
  My amendment will allow us to meet these goals because today this 
bill is not accomplishing any one of them. We are not providing a 
benefit that will help our retention and recruitment. We are not 
providing a readjustment benefit. We are not honoring the sacrifice of 
our veterans.
  My amendment would provide $900 million in additional funding for 
enhanced educational assistance. This number, Mr. Chairman, is 
important to explain how it was arrived at.
  All the Members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs applauded when 
the so-called transition commission reported its findings to our 
committee. That commission said that the Montgomery GI bill benefit 
should provide for the full costs of college education and its 
associated expenses for our veterans. Then we would have a recruiting 
tool to help our Nation's armed forces. In fact, that notion was 
embodied in H.R. 1071, the Evans-Dingell bill, which would pay for 
those full costs, in addition to a stipend of $800 a month.
  The chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Stump), also introduced a bill, H.R. 1182, which would pay for 90 
percent of those costs. When we realized that the budget could not 
provide for that in the short run, a coalition across this Nation of 
veterans' organizations and higher educational institutions came 
together and came up with a compromise to say, let us at least provide 
at the beginning for the average costs of attending a 4-year public 
school college as a commuter student. That number would come to $975 a 
month this year for full-time study.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) introduced that bill as 
H.R. 4334. It has the full backing of veterans' organizations, as I 
said, all across this Nation, and in accord with that H.R. 4334 would 
provide all veterans and service members with an opportunity to get a 
good college education while taking into account the realistic costs of 
college today.
  Let us not forget that it is largely thanks to our veterans that the 
rest of us are able to be safe and sound at home enjoying this 
prosperity. We ought to have the opportunity to give them the 
opportunity to continue their education.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to accept this amendment. The 
committee would not put this before our Members for a vote following 
the tradition of many parts of this bill, which have items that are not 
authorized. I would ask for this committee now to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the statements of various 
groups across this Nation, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 
AMVETS, the Noncommissioned Officers Association, the Blinded Veterans 
of America, in support of this amendment. They all have weighed in, and 
I include that in the Record.
         Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United 
           States of America,
                                    Alexandria, VA, June 16, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Filner,
     Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Filner: The Non Commissioned Officers Association 
     of the USA (NCOA) is writing to state its strong, wholeheared 
     support for your amendment to H.R. 4635, the Fiscal Year 2001 
     VA-HUD Appropriations Act, that would provide enhanced 
     readjustment educational assistance under the Montgomery GI 
     Bill. Although the House of Representatives recently approved 
     a modest increase to the basic monthly stipend, even when 
     fully implemented the increase approved will still only 
     equate to about 60% of the cost of attending a public four-
     year college.
       The military services are in the throes of a recruiting and 
     retention crisis that is nearing emergency proportion. 
     Recruiting is at its lowest since the all-volunteer force 
     began, even though enlistment requirements have declined by 
     thirty-three percent. Sixty-five percent of high school 
     graduates go on to post-secondary education. Only about 16 of 
     one hundred youth are available as military prospects.
       Prospective enlistees rated assistance with education to be 
     the number one attraction of military service for several 
     decades. That, however, is no longer the case. Prospective 
     enlistees and veterans observe and realize the emphasis 
     Congress has placed on higher education by providing more 
     attractive and richer education programs without the 
     sacrifice and risk associated with military service. This 
     realization inevitably results in a negative message to 
     prospective recruits that compounds the bad image which now 
     prevails about military service being an obstacle to a 
     rewarding and productive life--not a means to it.
       One comparison dramatically illustrates the need for your 
     amendment. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era GI 
     Bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a 
     spouse and two children; however, twenty years later, a 
     veteran with an identical circumstance receives only $43 
     more. One other comparison illustrates how Congress is 
     sending precisely the wrong message on the need for high 
     quality military members; just last year Congress approved 
     the DC College Access Act that provides grants of up to 
     $50,000 for DC high school graduates to pursue higher 
     educational goals. Today, our warriors who go in harms way 
     will receive a total benefit of $19,296 but only after paying 
     $1200 to establish eligibility (many of who quality for food 
     stamps because of inadequate military pay). This is morally 
     wrong. At a time when military recruitment is difficult and 
     retention is declining, this is also shortsighted public 
     policy.
       NCOA firmly believes it is a fundamental responsibility of 
     any great society to honor and help those who accept the 
     disruption and sacrifices that military service brings. The 
     Association also believes that the programs and services, 
     including the educational assistance programs, offered to 
     those who defend our country must be better than the programs 
     that are offered to those who do not. When Congress considers 
     education policy, the starting point should be the veteran 
     education benefit but that has not been the case. By 
     Congress' inattention to a program that is arguably the most 
     important recruiting and retention tool available, Congress 
     has devalued military service and we are witnessing the 
     consequences today. It will take a strong message to reverse 
     course and your amendment is right on target.
       An unprecedented partnership of 50 military, veterans and 
     higher education associations endorsed H.R. 4334, The 
     Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act, upon which your 
     amendment is based. That legislation and your amendment 
     simply says: Individuals who volunteer for and honorably 
     serve in the Nation's uniformed services shall be provided an 
     education benefit equal to the average cost of a commuter 
     student at a public four-year institution of higher learning. 
     For those who have provided for our peace, security and 
     prosperity, providing them with an ``average'' education 
     benefit is reasonable and doable.
       The Non Commissioned Officers Associations support this 
     amendment and urge your colleagues to do likewise and help 
     restore the veteran education benefit to the pre-eminent 
     place it should occupy in our society.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Larry D. Rhea,
                                  Director of Legislative Affairs.

[[Page 11296]]

     
                                  ____
                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Filner,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Filner: The men and women of the Veterans of 
     Foreign Wars of the United States fully supports your 
     amendment to H.R. 4635, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD 
     Appropriations Act, which would provide for enhanced 
     educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill 
     (MGIB). Although the House of Representatives recently passed 
     legislation that would raise the basic monthly stipend to 
     $600 per month, this amount is not sufficient to compensate 
     for over a decade of underfunding.
       Due to chronic underfunding, the Montgomery GI Bill has not 
     kept pace with the rising cost of higher education and now 
     has the distinction of having the lowest usage rate 
     (approximately 49 percent) of any GI Bill in history. 
     Unfortunately, many of the eligible servicemembers and 
     veterans who have paid into the program come to realize that 
     the MGIB monthly payout is not sufficient to meet the cost of 
     attending school. Consequently, they must defer attending 
     school or forego pursuing a higher education altogether.
       The historical underfunding of the Montgomery GI Bill has 
     been allowed to persist far too long and should not be 
     deferred for another year and another Congress. The VFW 
     applauds your effort in offering this amendment to provide 
     for enhanced educational assistance, and urges members of the 
     House to give it their fullest support.
           Sincerely,
                                               Dennis M. Cullinan,
     Director, National Legislative Service.
                                  ____



                                 AMVETS National Headquarters,

                                        Lanham, MD, June 16, 2000.
     To: Todd Honchins.
     Subject: Support for Representative Filner's Proposed 
         Amendment to H.R. 4635
       Comments: Todd, I just received your request for a letter 
     in support of Congressman Filner's proposed amendment to H.R. 
     4635. In the interest of time, our comments are contained 
     below.
       ``AMVETS has argued for several years that the Montgomery 
     GI Bill in its current form no longer serves as the 
     recruiting and retention incentive which Congress intended 
     when it passed the original legislation in 1985. During the 
     intervening period, tuition and other related educational 
     costs have risen dramatically leaving the MGIB participant at 
     a significant disadvantage in today's educational market 
     place.
       At a time in our history when Americans are enjoying 
     unprecedented prosperity, we can ill afford to allow those 
     men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and who, through 
     their sacrifices, underwrite the freedoms we enjoy, to be 
     left by the wayside. We know the GI Bill worked. All one has 
     to do is examine its success in helping World War II veterans 
     resume a normal life. MGIB is today's version of that success 
     story, however for its success to be sustained, we must 
     support it at an appropriate funding level. Today we read 
     that DoD recruiting is down; personnel retention is down, 
     military readiness is at an all time low and further, that 
     many service members qualify for food stamps.
       Surely ``a grateful nation'' can do better than this in 
     providing support for our men and women in uniform. AMVETS 
     commends Congressman Filner's efforts in championing this 
     effort to restore the Montgomery GI Bill to an effective and 
     responsive program.''
                                                David E. Woodbury,
     National Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                              State Approving, Agencies, Inc.,

                                                    June 19, 2000.
     Mr. Todd Houchins,
     Democratic Counsel, Subcommittee on Benefits, Committee on 
         Veterans Affairs, House of Representatives, Cannon House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Houchins: This letter is written to express our 
     complete support of the amendment that Congressman Filner is 
     proposing to make to H.R. 4635, for the purpose of enhancing 
     educational assistance under chapter 30 of title 38, United 
     States Code. The amendment would change the benefits received 
     under chapter 30 in accordance with the provisions of H.R. 
     4334 as introduced on April 13, 2000.
       We wholeheartedly believe that members of Congress should 
     accept Congressman Filner's amendment. Numerous studies and 
     reports, including the one issued by the Commission on 
     Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance on January 
     14, 1999, speak to the need for the Nation to give immediate 
     and serious attention to the importance of making 
     extraordinary changes in the Montgomery GI Bill. Attached is 
     a sheet that reflects some of the primary reasons for 
     immediate change. The reasons were developed by members of 
     the Partnership for Veterans Education, an informal coalition 
     of 49 nationally based military, veterans and higher 
     education organizations that support H.R. 4334.
       We stand ready to assist Congressman Filner in helping 
     other members of Congress to realize the importance of this 
     issue and the magnitude of the positive impact that will be 
     realized by the acceptance of the amendment. Please let us 
     know what we can do to assist in the achievement of this 
     goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                C. Donald Sweeney,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                 Blinded Veterans Association,

                                     Washington DC, June 16, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Filner,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Filner: The Blinded Veterans Association 
     (BVA), the only congressionally chartered veterans service 
     organization exclusively dedicated to serving the needs of 
     our nation's blinded veterans, is extremely supportive of 
     your amendment to H.R. 4635, which will increase funding for 
     the Montgomery GI Bill by $900,000,000. BVA believes 
     educational assistance for our veterans needs to be a 
     priority of the Congress.
       An increase in the Montgomery GI Bill not only serves as an 
     incentive for enlistment, but also assists those who might 
     not otherwise afford an adequate higher education and to 
     become a contributing member of this great nation.
       Thank you, Mr. Filner, for your great work as a veterans' 
     advocate. We appreciate your assistance in fulfilling the 
     promises made to those who risk their lives to protect this 
     great nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas H. Miller,
                                               Executive Director.

                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it clearly proposes legislating on an appropriations bill which 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

                              {time}  1515

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on 
the point of order?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the Chair if there are not 
dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized by this House?
  The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman repeat his request?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if this bill before 
us, upon which a point of order has been raised because the program is 
not authorized, even though I see it as an emergency item for our 
veterans, is it not true that there are dozens of other programs in 
this bill that are also not authorized by this committee or this House?
  The CHAIRMAN. A waiver of potential objections to other portions of 
the bill is not pertinent to the discussion before us.
  The Chair is willing and ready to hear arguments on the pending point 
of order.
  Mr. FILNER. I understand the Chair, but I would argue that a waiver 
is very pertinent. That is, this House can choose to protect certain 
programs from a point of order and can choose not to.
  I would ask the Chairman of this committee to not raise this point of 
order, as he has asked the Committee on Rules to waive points of order 
on dozens and dozens of other programs to provide a basic level of 
college education to those who have sacrificed for this Nation. It 
seems to be worthy of a waiver in this case. I would ask the chairman 
to so do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment proposes 
to designate an appropriation as an emergency for purposes of budget 
enforcement procedures in law. As such, it constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, is it in order to challenge the ruling of 
the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. An appeal of the decision of the Chair is in order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, based on the precedent that there are 
dozens of other points of order waived in this rule, I move to appeal 
the ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand 
as the judgment of the Committee?

[[Page 11297]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  So, the decision of the Chair stood as the judgment of the Committee.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to express my strong opposition to the 
very inadequate funding levels for housing and community development in 
this bill.
  This bill continues a very regrettable practice of the majority party 
to underfund housing programs, with the hope that Congressional 
Democrats and the administration will go to conference and insist in 
conference on more realistic funding levels.
  I do commend the work of the Subcommittee on Housing chairman, who 
does the best he can with clearly inadequate funding allocations 
dictated by the budget resolution. But, at the same time, I am very 
concerned by inaccurate characterizations that housing is doing well 
under this bill simply because budget authority is theoretically up by 
billions of dollars. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of this 
increase in budget authority does not benefit housing programs, 
individuals or services at all, but is simply an illusion of higher 
funding. I will insert into the Record a very detailed statement 
explaining this phenomenon.
  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, the majority party's first act was to cut 
the housing budget by 24 percent. We have been playing catchup ever 
since, in spite of the efforts of Democrats to beef up funding to meet 
needs.
  This year's House bill is no different. The bill is $2.5 billion 
lower than the administration's request; and, with the exception of the 
illusory section 8 increases, every program is flat funded or cut.
  In response to the 5.3 million households with worst case housing 
needs, some 12.5 million Americans, including millions of seniors, this 
bill ignores the administration's request for 120,000 incremental 
vouchers. It holds out the possibility of 20,000 incrementals, but that 
is contingent on very unrealistic recapture levels.
  In response to the 842,000 Americans who are homeless each night, 
with estimates of 3.5 million Americans homeless at some point during 
the year, the bill flat funds homeless programs, and this funding level 
is 21 percent lower in real terms than it was 6 years ago.
  In response to a growing elderly population and escalating rents, 
this bill flat funds elderly housing, leaving it some 50 percent lower 
than funding levels 6 years ago.
  In response to a multibillion dollar backlog of public housing repair 
and modernization needs, the bill cuts public housing funding by $120 
million compared to last year's level, and this level is 27 percent 
lower in real terms than the level of 6 years ago.
  In the wake of an historic bipartisan agreement on new markets and 
community renewal, the bill cuts every community development program, 
including a $275 million CDBG cut, a 20 percent Brownfields cut, and no 
funding for APIC and empowerment zones.
  In a response to the growing problem of predatory lending, the bill 
flat funds housing counseling, a program which helps first time and 
existing home buyers cope with home ownership challenges.
  Finally, the bill undermines the progress HUD is making in its 2020 
management reform plan. Specifically, the bill requires termination of 
the HUD Community Builder staff, which provides outreach for HUD 
programs, it threatens termination of contractors hired to inspect 
section 8 assisted housing, and reduces HUD's staffing levels below the 
already reduced target levels in this plan.
  Now, we can wait for a conference to fix a grossly deficient bill, 
but the right approach is for the House to fix it now, and, if we 
cannot fix it in this bill, to oppose the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record.
  The VA-HUD bill for fiscal year 2001 produced by House Republicans 
continues a trend over the last few years of providing inadequate 
funding levels for housing and community development programs, with a 
wink and a nod that the shortfall will be addressed in conference.
  Overall, the VA-HUD bill provides $2.5 billion less than the 
Administration's FY 2001 budget. With the exception of illusory 
increases in the Section 8 account, not a single program receives a 
funding increase; many receive major cuts. The bill continues to ignore 
critical needs in affordable housing, community development, and 
homelessness prevention.
  For this, I do not blame the Chairman of the VA-HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee, who has strived mightily to do the best he can with a 
clearly inadequate funding allocation. The real problem rests with the 
leadership of the majority party, which continues to cling to the 
fiction that their budget resolution provides adequate levels of 
discretionary spending--both overall and for housing. They know they 
will be bailed out in the end by Congressional Democrats and the 
Administration, who will insist in conference on more realistic funding 
levels--at least as long as we have this Administration in the White 
House.
  What is disturbing in recent years is the tendency to underfund 
housing programs in the House VA-HUD bill, but to cite artificial 
increases in budget authority to claim publicly that no one should 
complain about the bill's inadequacy because, after all, funding is 
``increased'' by billions of dollars for HUD programs.
  The bill before us today is a good example of this. Proponents of the 
legislation point to the fact that budget authority for HUD programs, 
funded in Title 2, is $4.1 billion higher than the total approved last 
fiscal year. While technically true, such ``increases'' are illusory. 
They do not expand programs, improve services, or increase the number 
of people served.
  The major source of this illusion of funding increases relates to the 
expiration of long-term Section 8 contracts. Decades ago, Congress 
approved rental assistance for project-based Section 8 housing under 
multi-decade contracts, with the estimated multi-year costs completely 
funded in year one. As a result, no additional budget authority has 
been needed in each of the years of the long-term contract to continue 
to pay rental subsidies to the tenants in such project-based housing.
  However, when these long term contracts expire and are renewed, 
Congress must for the first time in decades appropriate budget 
authority for the first year renewal cost of these rental subsidies. 
The result is a significant increase in budget authority (from zero to 
the annual cost) for all expiring contracts in any given year. Yet, the 
effect on budget outlays of this expiration is zero. And, the impact on 
the tenant is zero. The so-called budget authority ``increase'' is 
simply illusory.
  The majority party acknowledged this in 1997, during consideration of 
the 1997 bi-partisan balanced budget bill. At the time, we were just 
entering a period in which we anticipated an explosion of these 
expiring HUD contracts. As a result, budgeteers anticipated annual 
increases in required budget authority of several billion dollars a 
year. And, the majority party promised to build in these virtually 
automatic budget increases into their discretionary spending baseline. 
Moreover, when Section 8 reserves and recaptures occurred over the last 
few years, HUD proposed to use this excess budget authority to soften 
the impact of the anticipated increases caused by expirations. Instead, 
the majority party has repeatedly rescinded these Section 8 funds, in 
order to offset non-housing programs. When Democrats complained, we 
were assured that HUD would be made whole.
  Yet, in recent years, the majority party appears to be trying to mask 
the inadequate funding levels for housing by citing the budget 
authority increases caused by the expiration of Section 8 contracts. 
This year is no different. Approximately $3 billion in increases in 
Section 8 budget authority relate to expiring contracts.
  To be fair--to be consistent with what was promised in the 1997 
budget bill and subsequent rescission bills--we should refrain from 
characterizing these as ``increases'' in housing funding.
  Moreover, there are other factors that contribute to the illusion 
that funding for housing is going up this year. For example, in FY 
2000, we had over $1 billion in one-time reductions in HUD budget 
authority, relating to Section 8 recaptures, rescissions, and FHA 
provisions which are not expected to occur in FY 2001. The effect is 
the same as the Section 8 contract expiration phenomenon--the 
appearance of an increase in funding, but no corresponding benefit to 
housing programs, services, or low-income individuals assisted.
  Finally, we have some $300 million in ``increases'' in this year's 
appropriations bill which are at heart mere accounting changes for 
administrative expenses and costs in FHA and GNMA. In effect, the HUD 
target is taking a hit for allocations for costs in programs

[[Page 11298]]

which, under the mandatory side of the budget, account for billions of 
dollars in profits to the federal taxpayers. In any event, this does 
not produce additional housing or housing services.
  What is left, out of the billions in gross budget authority increases 
for housing in the bill before us today, is a few hundred million 
dollars in increased Section 8 costs for inflation adjustments for 
Section 8 tenants. In contrast, every other housing program is either 
flat funded at last year's levels or receives cuts. And, virtually 
every program is underfunded compared to need.
  5.3 million households (12.5 million Americans, including millions of 
senior citizens) have ``worst case housing needs''--that is, they pay 
more than 50% of their income for rent or live in severely substandard 
housing. The average waiting period for a Section 8 voucher or public 
housing unit is over two years. In every urban area nationwide, a 
minimum wage does not provide adequate income to afford a median period 
apartment rental.
  In response to this crisis the majority party in 1995 rescinded the 
62,000 incremental Section 8 rental vouchers funded by Democrats the 
year before. The pattern since then is clear: the Administration 
proposes incremental vouchers, and the majority party ignores that 
request in the House VA-HUD bill. This year is no different. In 
response to the Administration's proposal for 120,000 incremental 
vouchers, the bill holds out the mere possibility of 20,000 vouchers--
contingent on overly optimistic Section 8 recapture levels, and 
therefore unlikely to materialize.
  The majority justifies this inaction by blaming HUD for what it 
characterizes as unacceptably low voucher utilization rates. This 
criticism is not valid. A major cause for less than 100% utilization 
rates is the normal down time for Section 8 recipients to find housing 
opportunities--a particularly severe problem in low vacancy areas. To 
the extent that some housing authorities are not doing a good job in 
putting vouchers out, the problem lies with them, not with HUD. 
Moreover, these concerns do not justify ignoring the tremendous unmet 
rental subsidy need.
  According to the Urban Institute, on any single night, 842,000 
Americans are homeless, and at some point during the year 3.5 million 
Americans are homeless. Many homeless are working poor. Yet, the VA-HUD 
bill does not increase funding for homeless prevention programs, 
leaving funding 21% lower in real terms than six years ago, the last 
time Democrats controlled Congress.
  As our population ages, and as rents escalate at a faster rate than 
fixed incomes and inflation, the problem of housing affordability for 
seniors continues to grow. Yet, the VA-HUD bill flat funds elderly 
housing--leaving it 53% lower in real terms than the level of six years 
ago. When Democrats offered an amendment to increase elderly housing by 
$69 million up to the President's level, an amendment fully paid for by 
FHA program changes, the majority voted no on a party line vote.
  Public housing units face a multi-billion dollar backlog of repair 
needs. Yet, the bill cuts public housing funding by $120 million, 
compared to last year's bill. The bill's proposed level is 27% lower in 
real terms than the level of six years ago.
  The bill undercuts the President's recently announced New Markets 
Initiative agreement with Speaker Hastert, by cutting every community 
development program, including a $275 million cut from last year's 
level for CDBG; a $44 million cut in CDBG Section 108 loan authority; 
zero funding for Empowerment Zones; zero funding for APIC loan 
guarantees (part of the New Markets Initiative); and a 20% cut in 
funding for Brownfields Redevelopment.
  The bill cuts the HOME program, which funds low down payment 
homeownership programs and affordable housing construction. And, the 
bill ignores HUD's request for a $9 million increase in housing 
counseling, leaving funding down 70% compared to six years ago. 
Counseling is an important tool in fighting the growing problem of 
predatory lending.
  Finally, the bill undermines the progress HUD is making in its 2020 
Management Reform plan. Specifically, the bill requires termination of 
the HUD Community Builder staff which provides outreach for HUD 
programs, threatens termination of contractors hired to inspect Section 
8 assisted housing, and reduces HUD staffing levels below the already 
reduced target levels in this plan.
  I am particularly baffled by the majority's decision to completely 
eliminate the Community Builder program at HUD. This program is an 
important component in HUD's consolidation plan. The purpose is to have 
a staff of professionals whose sole job is to provide community 
outreach for and assistance with HUD programs. The purpose is to 
separate this function from program management and oversight functions.
  Last year, the Appropriations Committee expressed its concern about 
the ``External Community Builders'' program, especially with respect to 
the way these personnel were hired. Last year's bill required the 
termination of the external community builder program, and prohibited 
HUD from rehiring these individuals, except through normal civil 
service procedures. The bill clearly did not require or even hint at 
the termination of the internal community builder program. In fact, 
there was language indicating how the program should continue to be 
managed.
  Now, the majority is reversing itself by eliminating the community 
builder program entirely, and mandating the firing of all community 
builders--even those hired years ago and unaffected by last year's 
policy. There are a number of reasons why this is wrong.
  First, elimination of this position means that HUD will not be able 
to keep open some of their smaller field offices. Without the multi-
disciplinary background of community builders, the choice will in many 
cases be between closing a field office or bringing in a larger number 
of personnel to cover the various program areas--personnel which are 
not available in a downsized HUD. Inevitable, some smaller field 
offices will be closed.
  Second, it is bad policy to undermine a program designed to make HUD 
more responsive and accountable to the public. This is a major setback 
to HUD's management reforms. HUD will lose its staff that is 
experienced in these functions, and will be forced to totally 
reorganize its staffing structure, to the point where individuals go 
back to mixing program management and outreach responsibilities.
  Third, the bill before us, incorrectly in my view, implies that HUD 
has failed to follow last year's policy directives. In fact, all 
external community builders are being terminated. No one is either 
slotted back into HUD directly or even given a preference because of 
their role as external community builders. And, the GS levels of 
replacement hires is on average significantly below the levels of the 
former external community builders.
  I am also baffled why funding for ``Contract Administrators'' is made 
contingent on achieving unrealistic levels of Section 8 recaptures. 
This line item pays for the hiring of independent contractors which 
perform physical inspections of HUD-assisted project-based housing.
  Last year, the Housing Subcommittee held a hearing in which the GAO 
testified about the level of progress HUD is making in its management 
reforms. Yet, one of their principal concerns that GAO cited about HUD 
was that it did not have a good handle on its Section 8 project-based 
stock. Therefore, it makes no sense, as this bill does, to make funding 
for inspection of Section 8 housing contingent on unrealistic Section 8 
recapture levels.
  You can't have it both ways--criticizing HUD for its oversight, then 
robbing HUD of the tools it needs for this oversight.
  In closing, I urge members not to overlook the housing funding 
inadequacies in this bill, simply because budget authority is going up, 
or because we have vague promises that ``things will be taken care of 
in conference.''
  Five years ago, the majority party cut the HUD budget by 24%. Housing 
funding has struggled to catch up ever since. This bill does not 
address the 5.3 million American households with ``worse case housing 
needs.'' This bill does not address the 842,000 Americans that are 
homeless on any given night. This bill does not address the need to 
extend our strong economic growth to all communities and individuals.
  We can and should do better.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   veterans insurance and indemnities

       For military and naval insurance, national service life 
     insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled 
     veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat. 
     487, $19,850,000, to remain available until expended.

         veterans housing benefit program fund program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by 
     38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That during fiscal year 
     2001, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000 
     in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for 
     specially adapted housing loans.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $161,484,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

[[Page 11299]]



                  education loan fund program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including 
     the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans not to exceed $3,400.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $220,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

            vocational rehabilitation loans program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $52,000, as authorized by 38 
     U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $2,726,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $432,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``General operating expenses''.

          native american veteran housing loan program account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan 
     program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as 
     amended, $532,000, which may be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.

  guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program 
                                account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Not to exceed $750,000 of the amounts appropriated by this 
     Act for ``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' 
     may be expended for the administrative expenses to carry out 
     the guaranteed loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 
     37, subchapter VI.

                     Veterans Health Administration


                              medical care

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities 
     not under the jurisdiction of the department; and furnishing 
     recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral, 
     burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for 
     beneficiaries receiving care in the department; 
     administrative expenses in support of planning, design, 
     project management, real property acquisition and 
     disposition, construction and renovation of any facility 
     under the jurisdiction or for the use of the department; 
     oversight, engineering and architectural activities not 
     charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or 
     providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under 
     the jurisdiction of the department, not otherwise provided 
     for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees 
     and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as 
     authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal 
     expenses of the department for collecting and recovering 
     amounts owed the department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. 
     chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 
     U.S.C. 2651 et seq. and such sums as necessary to fund cost 
     comparison studies as referred to in 38 U.S.C. 8110(a)(5): 
     $20,281,587,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, not more than 
     $3,000,000,000 may be used for the operation and maintenance 
     of facilities: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $927,000,000 is for the 
     equipment and land and structures object classifications 
     only, which amount shall not become available for obligation 
     until August 1, 2001, and shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available under this heading, not to exceed $900,000,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2002: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     not to exceed $28,134,000 may be transferred to and merged 
     with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses'': 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     shall conduct by contract a program of recovery audits for 
     the fee basis and other medical services contracts with 
     respect to payments for hospital care; and, notwithstanding 
     31 U.S.C. 3302(b), amounts collected, by setoff or otherwise, 
     as the result of such audits shall be available, without 
     fiscal year limitation, for the purposes for which funds are 
     appropriated under this heading and the purposes of paying a 
     contractor a percentage of the amount collected as a result 
     of an audit carried out by the contractor: Provided further, 
     That all amounts so collected under the preceding proviso 
     with respect to a designated health care region (as that term 
     is defined in 38 U.S.C. 1729A(d)(2)) shall be allocated, net 
     of payments to the contractor, to that region.
       In addition, in conformance with Public Law 105-33 
     establishing the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care 
     Collections Fund, such sums as may be deposited to such Fund 
     pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1729A may be transferred to this 
     account, to remain available until expended for the purposes 
     of this account.
       None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the 
     Department of Justice for the purposes of supporting tobacco 
     litigation.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Waxman:
       Page 9, line 3, before the period insert the following: ``, 
     except for the funds for the administrative and legal 
     expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for collecting 
     and recovering amounts owed the United States as authorized 
     under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code, and the 
     Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651 et 
     seq.).''.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment along with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans Affairs, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who are the co-chairs of 
the House Caucus on Tobacco and Health, and the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). It amends a rider in the bill that would have 
the effect of blocking the Justice Department's lawsuit against the 
tobacco companies.
  Tobacco use may be the single greatest threat to public health in the 
United States. It kills hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. 
It is a particular threat to children, who are bombarded by slick 
advertisements inducing them to smoke, and to veterans, who often 
become addicted to nicotine while in the service.
  With the magnitude of the health threat, Congress' record on tobacco 
has been absolutely abysmal. In 1998, I reached across party lines to 
reach an agreement with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, on how to regulate tobacco. This 
was an historic agreement, because the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Bliley) and I had long been opposed to each other on tobacco issues. 
Our agreement addressed many of the most contentious tobacco issues, 
including FDA regulation, environmental tobacco smoke and reducing 
youth smoking. But the leadership did not even allow a vote on the 
floor on our bipartisan proposal.
  Since then, Congress has done very little to protect children and 
public health from tobacco. When the Supreme Court struck down the FDA 
regulation of tobacco earlier this year, the court invited Congress to 
act, calling tobacco use ``perhaps the single most significant threat 
to public health in the United States.''
  But Congress has not even held a single day of hearings on FDA 
jurisdiction, and today we are considering legislation that would 
actually shield the tobacco companies from Federal liability. This most 
likely will be the only legislation which we will consider on the House 
floor dealing with tobacco.
  Mr. Chairman, tucked away in this bill is a rider that is worth 
hundreds of billions of dollars to the tobacco industry. This rider 
protects the tobacco industry at the expense of health care for our 
veterans and the well-being of our children.
  Last fall, the Justice Department filed the suit against the tobacco 
industry. The suit alleges that decades of deceit by the tobacco 
industry have caused Federal taxpayers to spend billions paying for 
tobacco-related illness. The suit seeks recovery of those funds, as 
well as injunctive relief, to stop the companies from marketing to 
children and engaging in other deceptive and illegal practices.
  This lawsuit is good for the American taxpayer, who spend over $25 
billion a year to treat tobacco-related illnesses. Recovery of Medicare 
funds would be deposited into the Medicare Trust Fund, thus adding 
years to Medicare's solvency.
  This lawsuit is also good for veterans. Currently the VA spends over 
$1

[[Page 11300]]

billion a year treating tobacco-related illness. Under the Medical Care 
Recovery Act, any recovery of these funds would be returned to the VA 
health program. The VA stands to recover billions of health care 
dollars, dollars that could be used to provide critically needed health 
care to our veterans.
  The lawsuit is modeled on the successful litigation by the States 
attorneys general, but it will have no effect on their suit or their 
settlement. It will also have no effect on small retailers. The 
defendants in this case are all major cigarette manufacturers.
  Despite the merits of the suit, a rider in this bill prohibits the VA 
from transferring funds to the Justice Department for tobacco 
litigation, and effectively blocks VA from participating in the 
lawsuit.
  There is no question who is behind this rider. It is the tobacco 
industry. Philip Morris has been actively lobbying Congress. Last week 
I mailed a ``Dear Colleague'' letter that attached the talking points 
Philip Morris is using. You may even hear some of those talking points 
in the debate today.
  Philip Morris argues this amendment will use VA health care funds for 
the tobacco lawsuit.

                              {time}  1730

  This is simply false.
  The amendment expressly states that only funds that can be used for 
the VA lawsuit are ``the funds for the administrative and legal 
expenses of the Department of Veterans Affairs for collecting and 
recovering amounts owed the United States,'' not funds intended for 
veterans' health care.
  Philip Morris also argues that the rider is not about tobacco. Of 
course this issue is about tobacco. Philip Morris's argument has as 
much credibility as their testimony that nicotine is not addictive.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague alleges that this bill stops the tobacco 
lawsuit, that what we have done in this bill stops the tobacco lawsuit. 
That is not true. I can assure the House that the VA-HUD bill does not 
have jurisdiction over the Department of Justice nor its priorities. 
Nothing in this bill prohibits the Administration or the Department of 
Justice from moving forward with the lawsuit.
  One of the problems with these politically motivated debates is that 
individual's motivations are questioned.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not smoke; I did. I realized it was habit forming; 
I realized it was bad for my health, so I quit about 25 years ago. I 
hope every American comes to that realization themselves. Those who 
would support the subcommittee's position here would be accused of 
being sold out to the tobacco industry. Well, again, questioning 
people's motivations does very little to dignify the debate. But I 
would state for the record that I have never accepted tobacco 
contributions.
  We are trying to craft a bill here that provides resources for our 
veterans. We have heard Member after Member, one after another, come up 
and say we are not putting enough money in here for veterans' medical 
care, one after another. We are doing our level best to fund veterans' 
medical care. We put in $1.7 billion last year, $1.35 billion this 
year; and people still say it is not enough.
  If this lawsuit started to draw down veterans' medical care funds, 
and that is what this does, regardless of what the gentleman says, it 
comes out of the veterans' medical care budget, which is $4 million to 
$6 million a year every year for however long the suit goes on.
  We have heard the gentleman from New Jersey talk about veterans with 
hepatitis C. We tried to put additional funds in to deal with that 
deadly disease, but we did not meet expectations. There is more need 
out there. This takes $4 million to $6 million out of the veterans 
budget for hepatosis C, for HIV/AIDS, for spinal injuries, for mental 
health care, for drug prescriptions.
  Mr. Chairman, these funds are precious; and they are dear. Let the 
Justice Department take it out of their own budget. That is their job. 
They are the lawyers. They have thousands and thousands of lawyers at 
the Department of Justice. The VA has hundreds and hundreds of doctors, 
and thousands and thousands of veterans; and we need to use those 
resources to take care of that commitment for medical care.
  If the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Administration want to 
use VA dollars to pay for this lawsuit, they can take the money from 
the Secretary's office or the general counsel's office. This bill says 
we cannot take money from veterans' medical care account. This language 
is limited to one account out of 18 that funds the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  I am also concerned about how money derived from this litigation will 
be spent. No one on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies has seen a formal, binding agreement from the Administration 
or the Department of Justice on how these dollars will be spent between 
VA, Defense and Health and Human Services. The Administration tried in 
the past to bolster the budget with new spending from a fictional 
tobacco settlement. Yet VA's health funding remained level.
  I am all for seeing more dollars for VA in health care and I think 
every member is, but I have not seen the contract yet. The 
Administration has never said that any settlement would go to the 
veterans. In fact, in their third-party collection funding scheme, 
those funds would go to the general Treasury and not to the veterans 
agency or to veterans' medical care.
  So regardless of what we are going to hear, let the Justice 
Department handle the lawsuits, let the Veterans Administration handle 
veterans' medical care.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this place is something else. I am no blue nose. If 
people want to make an informed decision to smoke, so be it. I used to 
smoke three packs of cigarettes a day. At the same time, I worked with 
asbestos. Johns Manville Corporation knew since 1939 that asbestos 
caused cancer, but I did not when I was working with it, because they 
hid it from consumers and from the Government itself. I also did not 
know, but Johns Manville did, and I believe the tobacco companies did 
too, that there was a synergistic effect between asbestos and tobacco, 
and when one is exposed to both, one's chances of getting cancer 
increased at a geometric rate. So very frankly, since those days I have 
been waiting for the shoe to drop.
  We have the same situation with the tobacco company executives that 
we had with the asbestos company executives. Both of them lied through 
their teeth for years. When the gentleman from California's (Mr. 
Waxman) subcommittee was holding the hearings, we all remember the 
famous seven tobacco company presidents standing up and swearing to 
tell the truth, and then proceeding to tell the committee that no, no, 
no, they did not believe that tobacco caused cancer. Well, they had in 
their files information that demonstrated that they certainly knew it 
did.
  So we have listened to their bull gravy for 50 years. Now we have a 
question as to whether or not we are going to do anything about it or 
not.
  The gentleman said there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the 
tobacco settlement, or the tobacco lawsuit from going forward. That is 
speaking only half the truth, because what is happening is that the 
appropriation bill which we will consider next, the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriation bill, forbids the 
Justice Department from using its own funds to pursue a tobacco 
settlement; and then they have in other appropriation bills, in the 
Defense bill, in this bill, and I believe in one other appropriation 
bill, they also say that you cannot use funds from any of the other 
agencies and allow the Justice Department to use those funds from other 
agencies to pursue their tobacco suit either.
  So slowly, the Justice Department is being surrounded by this 
multiplicity of attacks in appropriation bills. I think that that is 
wrong, and I think

[[Page 11301]]

we ought to adopt the gentleman's amendment.
  Now, I know that we will hear people say ``oh, we are going to take 
money away from veterans' health care and use it to fund this suit, and 
it is just going to go into the pockets of the lawyers.'' The fact is 
that I offered seven amendments in one session alone, trying to get the 
majority party to increase funding for veterans' health care, and they 
turned them all down and they did that 2 years in a row. I would 
suggest now, to say that the veterans' department, which has the 
potential to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue 
for veterans, for the treatment of their problems, to say that they 
cannot try to do that by expending $4 million out of their own funds to 
pursue this case on behalf of every veteran and on behalf of the 
taxpayers is ludicrous, at best.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out also that if one checks the 
facts about litigation only enriching lawyers, the administration has 
indicated that the department has not engaged any lawyer on a 
contingency-fee basis. They did engage one firm on a limited 
arrangement on terms that were favorable to the Government. Under that 
contract, which ran for 3 months, the firm provided assistance to the 
Department at a reduced rate of $75 per hour, well below normal billing 
fees. The payment for services to that firm total less than $80,000.
  So we should not kid ourselves. Every time we hear somebody say, this 
is not about tobacco, remember, it is about tobacco, and it is about 
lying, and it is about whether or not we will defend the taxpayers' 
interests to recoup the billions of dollars that have been spent. It is 
about meeting our responsibilities, to see to it that the taxpayer is 
not stuck with the cost of providing health care to veterans and other 
folks in this society because the tobacco companies lied and caused 
billions of dollars' worth of damage in the process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we promised the veterans a couple of years 
ago when we took away money for their disability based on tobacco 
smoking and all of the illnesses that resulted from it, that we would 
pursue this litigation and get back into the veterans' program money 
that rightfully belongs in that program because of the deception add 
bad-doing, fraudulent actions of the tobacco companies. After years of 
deceit and deception, it is right to hold the tobacco companies 
accountable for their false promises, misrepresentations, suppression 
of knowledge about the health risks of tobacco.
  This rider would stop the litigation. The Attorney General, Janet 
Reno, today, in a press conference, announced that if this rider goes 
through, prohibiting the transfer of funds, she will not have the 
ability to pursue this litigation; she would have to drop the lawsuit.
  We are not, and I want to emphasize this, because there seems to be 
some misunderstanding even on the part of the chairman of the 
subcommittee about our amendment. We are not transferring money from 
veterans' health care, but only from the veterans' health care fund for 
litigation, for expenses and legal fees. What more appropriate use of 
those funds would there be than to go against the tobacco companies to 
recover money for the veterans' health program and to keep our promise 
to the veterans that we would get money to put into veterans' health to 
make up for that which we took away from them over the years, just 2 
years ago and to make up for the deceptions that the American 
Government placed on veterans when we encouraged them to start smoking 
in the past, which caused so much of the death, disability, and illness 
for which we could now get recovery from the tobacco industry. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say that to suggest that the veterans are 
getting a bad deal by asking that $4 million be spent on this suit when 
we can get back hundreds of millions of dollars in return is patently 
preposterous on its face.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment by our 
colleague from California, because it simply allows the wheels of 
justice to move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, there is something terribly wrong with the leadership 
of this body. During the last Congress, despite overwhelming facts to 
the contrary, the leadership effectively denied veterans the 
opportunity to seek legitimate compensation from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for tobacco-related illnesses and disease, as well as 
tobacco addiction, during their service in the Armed Forces. That day, 
I believe, was one of the least noble moments in the history of this 
body.
  Now, adding insult to injury, the leadership of the House seeks to 
deny the funds needed for our Federal Government to continue to seek, 
in court, the recovery of costs the Federal Government has incurred 
treating tobacco-related illnesses. It is a sad day indeed when the 
leadership of this House seeks to shield the tobacco industry from 
legitimate legal action brought by the Federal Government.
  We must not forget these facts: funds spent by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for health care used to treat tobacco illnesses and 
disease have been estimated to be between $1 billion and $4 billion a 
year. As many as 75 percent of our World War II veterans began smoking 
as young adults during their military service. Cigarettes have been 
distributed free of charge to members of the Armed Forces as part of 
their so-called ``C-rations,'' and the labeling requirements warning of 
the dangers of nicotine and tobacco did not become mandatory for 
products distributed through the military system until 1970, 5 years 
after this labeling was required for the civilian market.

                              {time}  1745

  Tobacco products were sold by the military at substantially 
discounted rates. As late as 1996, commissary tobacco prices were up to 
76 percent less than commercial retail prices.
  Those who support the tobacco industry will make the argument that 
using VA funds to finance this lawsuit will mean less money for medical 
care. The truth is, these dollars would be added to the 
administration's request after negotiations between the VA and the 
administration have concluded.
  As an additional safeguard, our amendment would be directed at using 
only funds that would otherwise be used for nonmedical purposes; 
specifically, for the administration and legal expenses incurred in 
pursuing this lawsuit. It is misleading to say that these funds will be 
designated for health care.
  Earlier today, four major veterans organizations spoke in support of 
this amendment. Veterans who will benefit from the successful outcome 
of this litigation will not be fooled. They want this litigation.
  In the name of justice, support
the Waxman-Evans-Hansen-Meehan-Stabenow amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, people back in my district always ask me, they say, is 
it difficult being in Congress? They say, what is the worst thing that 
goes on? I always reply, the partisanship that exists between the two 
parties.
  No matter what we do, how much we try and increase, put up 
priorities, the other side of the aisle wants the majority back, so 
they will blast anything we do.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said that he had 7 
different amendments to increase veterans' health care. Most of us on 
both sides of the aisle support increasing health care for veterans, 
and also making sure that the fraud and abuse, like within the VA 
system, $1 million a day, is taken care of.

[[Page 11302]]

  Yet, when we get to the House floor here, Members will see and hear, 
well, it is only tax breaks for the rich. We do not think that paying 
taxes back to people because they get married is a tax break for the 
rich, or money that people invest with their families their whole 
lives, they pay taxes on, build up their business or farm, and where 
the government wants to come in and take 55 percent of it back, that 
that is a tax break for the rich. There is a legitimate difference of 
opinion.
  I would say to my friends on the other side, we added $1.7 billion, 
the highest ever for veterans' health care last year, and $1.4 billion 
this year. Yet, it is never enough. We will hear, ``more research, more 
HUD,'' and in the last bill, ``more Labor-HHS.'' On every single line 
item, Members the other side of the aisle say, we want more, we want 
more.
  There is a difference between fiscal responsibility and 
irresponsibility. For 30 years they ran the House. Let me give an idea. 
If we pay down the national debt, we spend nearly $1 billion a day on 
just the interest, so $360-some billion we would have put into the 
coffers. But if we continue spending like my colleagues on the other 
side did when they had the majority, the other side of the aisle, then 
we just keep increasing that debt.
  In 1993, when they had the White House, the House, and the Senate, 
they cut veterans' COLAs. My own party at one time wanted to cut 
veterans' COLAs. We fought that in our conference and defeated it. I 
think it is wrong. But Members just continue to spend and build up the 
national debt.
  They talk about the President's budget. We as Republicans brought the 
President's budget back last year to the floor to show how ridiculous 
it was. Not many Democrats voted for it. Yet, they say the President 
wanted $1.2 billion, and we are only putting a $500 million increase, 
so we are cutting. That kind of rhetoric is what makes it difficult to 
work here, instead of coming together and helping in veterans' health 
care.
  I am a veteran, a combat veteran. Most of my colleagues on that side 
of the aisle know it. The only area which some of the people that are 
blasting us will support is every other area but defense. Watch, there 
will be a couple of amendments here today to take out selective 
service.
  In time of national emergency, in time of national emergency we are 
going to need the selective service program not only for biological and 
chemical weapons that may come forward, but if we end up in a WWII or 
World War III, that is the only time it would be used.
  I ask my colleagues, cut the rhetoric: ``Tax breaks for the rich.'' 
Some people believe it, but they know it is ridiculous. Cut the 
rhetoric: Well, the President's bill did this. They did not even vote 
for the President's budget. Only four Democrats voted for it, so the 
numbers there are inaccurate.
  Let us sit down and work in a bipartisan way. Let us increase 
veterans and let us support it, and take this bill on to conference.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The 
Department of Veterans Affairs' medical budget is not the appropriate 
place from which to fund Department of Justice lawsuits. It funds the 
Veterans Administration Department's own legal expenses, and funding 
Department of Justice lawsuits to the tune of $4 million or even 
higher, because there is no limitation here, would significantly reduce 
funds available for veterans' medical care.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been stated or alluded to that the effect of the 
restriction placed in the bill, and let me read it, Mr. Chairman, it 
says, ``None of the foregoing funds may be transferred to the 
Department of Justice for purposes of supporting tobacco litigation.'' 
The restriction in here only says that none of the funds out of the 
Veterans Affairs medical budget can be transferred to the Department of 
Justice for its litigation purposes.
  It has been alleged that that has the effect of blocking the 
Department of Justice's lawsuit against the tobacco industry. I 
respectfully disagree with that. It does no such thing. It does not 
preclude the Department of Justice from moving forward with lawsuits. 
What it does do, the bill language simply prohibits the Veterans 
Administration from transferring veterans' medical care dollars to the 
Department of Justice. That is the only intention and the only 
motivation, to preserve those scarce medical care dollars.
  That money would come out of the medical care collections fund. 
Indeed, it does fund legal expenses for the Veterans Administration in 
this area: ``Legal expenses of the Department for collecting and 
recovering amounts owed the Department.'' There are people very busily 
working over at the Veterans Administration spending dollars out of 
that account to collect third party pay, to collect dollars that are 
owed from other areas. They significantly multiply their salaries. That 
is, they are responsible for generating a lot of dollars. Take that $4 
million out of this account and, arguably, we would reduce by a factor 
of many times $4 million the amount of money available for veterans' 
medical care.
  The budget for veterans' medical care has been severely stressed 
during the last several years. After 2 years of flat budgets, Congress 
enacted a substantial increase in medical care last year. The bill 
before us today builds on that increase by fully funding the 
President's budget request for medical care, more than $1.3 billion 
over current funding.
  I cannot support an effort to divert funding from this priority in 
order to fund the operations of another agency. God bless the other 
agency, let them move forward with their lawsuit with their own funds; 
in this case, the Department of Justice. That department, the 
Department of Justice, has received significant increases during the 
past decade, as opposed to the Veterans Administration. In 1990, the 
Department of Justice received $8.8 billion. By 1996, that had risen to 
over $16 billion, and current year funding is over $20 billion.
  The Department of Justice is not an agency that has faced the same 
restrictive budgets as the VA. It can afford to prosecute this lawsuit 
without taking money out of the veterans account.
  Each appropriations subcommittee must establish its own priorities 
for the agencies under its jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, let me point out 
that the veterans organizations are split on this issue, but that the 
American Legion, while it supports the Department of Justice going 
forward with its lawsuit, does not support taking health care dollars 
from the VA to pay for the litigation and thinks it is 
counterproductive, especially with the growing demand for services by 
the aging veteran population.
  This amendment does not stop any litigation, or this restriction, 
excuse me. It simply provides that that money will not come out of 
veterans' health care, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the ranking member and the 
chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in rising in 
opposition to this amendment, and I would like to clarify some 
misconceptions about the language its sponsors are attempting to remove 
from our bill.
  Contrary to some of the Dear Colleagues and other letters that have 
been circulated, the language in the VA-HUD bill does one thing, it 
prevents the VA from taking funding from the veterans' medical care 
account to pay for lawsuits against tobacco companies.
  Our committee language does not, I emphasize, does not prevent the VA 
from giving the Justice Department money to pursue their lawsuit, so 
the gentleman's amendment is not necessary.
  Frankly, I am no friend of tobacco, of the industry, but we have not 
worked so hard on our committee in a bipartisan way to increase the 
medical accounts over the past 4 years and the VA's budget on behalf of 
our veterans to see the administration and the Department of Justice 
push our veterans

[[Page 11303]]

out of the way so they can flog tobacco companies using funding from 
this and other appropriations bills.
  The statistics are grim. An estimated 30,000 veterans from the World 
War II era are dying each month. These men and women need medical care 
today, not 3 or 4 years down the road. That is why none of this 
critical funding should be diverted from their medical care, care that 
they have more than earned and deserve. Too much has been taken away 
from our veterans already to deal them this additional blow.
  For those who might forget or wish to forget, the TEA-21 bill signed 
by the President in 1998 and sponsored by a majority in this Chamber, 
and supported by them, cut veterans' disability payments for smoking-
related illnesses by $14.4 billion to pay for highways and other 
important transportation projects. I voted against this bill because 
that $15.4 billion should have been spent on compensating veterans with 
tobacco-related illnesses, or redirecting it into paying for veterans' 
medical care for veterans with smoking-related illnesses, as well as 
other veterans, instead of paving more highways and building more roads 
and taking care of more worthwhile projects.
  Now, the administration is proposing to take $4 million from the 
fiscal year 2001 allocation for veterans' medical care accounts to pay 
the Justice Department's legal expenses to sue tobacco companies.
  Some have argued to me that $4 million is a small amount of money and 
its diversion makes little difference overall to veterans' medical 
care. But I can tell the Members, $4 million would provide for veterans 
in my district a lot of necessary things related to Hepatitis C, 
related to prescription drugs.
  Our committee language already allows the VA to use funding from 
somewhere else within its budget, just not from an account that 
directly pays for veterans' medical care. There are a number of other 
accounts within the Department of Justice that the VA can take money 
from, including departmental administration, general operating 
expenses, medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, 
construction, major and minor projects, other types of grants.
  These accounts total over $1.36 billion, and the VA cannot find $4 
million from those accounts to pay for this lawsuit? That is 
incredible. The Secretary should cut his own budget and reduce 
administrative overhead before he raids the veterans' medical care 
accounts to comply with White House directives.
  The VA should use every dollar appropriated for veterans' medical 
care to provide for the men and women who fought our wars, and to 
``care for him who shall have borne the battle.''
  I do not oppose lawsuits against the tobacco industry. I certainly do 
not receive any financial contributions from them. I do oppose the use 
of veterans' medical care dollars to pay for the Justice Department's 
lawsuit.

                              {time}  1800

  In closing, let me repeat that this language does not prohibit the VA 
from participating in the lawsuit. Our committee language does protect 
veterans' medical care dollars to make sure they are spent today for 
the reason they were intended, to provide for the 25 million men and 
women in this country who bore the cost of battle and who have fought 
to defend our Nation's freedom.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and my colleagues and my 
amendment. This is not about taking money out of the medical care 
budget. This is about taking money, $4 million, that is for medical 
care litigation. That is when the Veterans Administration has an 
opportunity to go out and get money that is owed to them, then they go 
to court and litigate.
  Now what better expenditure than to expend that litigation money on 
fighting the tobacco companies? We have seen Attorneys General from 
across this country litigate and take the lead, before the Federal 
Government and this Congress did, to litigate against the tobacco 
industry; and they won $246 billion to repay Medicaid costs related to 
tobacco.
  Why is this such a good investment to take the tobacco companies to 
court? Well, I will tell my colleagues why it is a good investment. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who has offered this amendment, 
had hearings before the Congress. The tobacco companies came before the 
Congress; and they said their product, under oath, did not addict 
people. They said their product, under oath, was not addictive, was not 
harmful to health.
  Then we found out when we looked at internal documents that, in fact, 
they knew the dangers and the death and destruction that this product 
was causing. We are talking about veterans, many of whom started 
smoking in the 1950s and the 1960s when there were no warnings on 
cigarette packages then.
  There were days when the veterans used to get free cigarettes from 
the tobacco companies. I wonder why they gave them free cigarettes? We 
now know that in the 1950s and the 1960s they were conducting studies. 
They knew of the addictive propensity of their product, and they knew 
they were addicting people to their product.
  It is time that we make the veterans and the Veterans Administration 
whole. We should get back what is owed to the veterans, what is owed to 
the Veterans Administration. That is why this expenditure for 
litigation makes so much sense. Why do you think the tobacco companies 
settle for $246 billion? They were cutting their losses.
  We have a great opportunity here to make whole expenditures for 
veterans health care cost. What a great time to do it, at a time we are 
trying to meet our commitment to our world or to veterans for health 
care, at a time when consolidation is causing anguish among veterans 
all across the country.
  In Veterans Administration facilities, many of these veterans are 
there because of health-related costs that they got from smoking 
tobacco, from smoking cigarettes at a time when tobacco companies told 
them it was not dangerous, at a time when tobacco companies did not 
warn them of the dangerous propensities.
  That is why we go to court, that is why we have this civil lawsuit, 
and that is why we are looking to make whole the Veterans 
Administration and make whole the veterans of this country and others 
who were victims. We are talking about representing victims in court.
  We have a $4 million litigation account where the Veterans 
Administration takes and says, where can we make whole our expenditures 
in health care. How can anybody argue that the proper place for the 
Veterans Administration, too, to be made whole for health care cost 
than going after big tobacco.
  We have been remiss in not going after the tobacco companies earlier. 
We have let the Attorneys General take the lead on it. We have let 
State legislatures all over the country take the lead on taking on big 
tobacco while the Congress has sat back and waited.
  What would we do if Jeffrey Wigand had not had the courage to come 
forward and tell us as a scientist from one of the major tobacco 
companies that, as a scientist, they were manipulating the nicotine in 
their products, knowing it was addicting people? That is what this 
liability is all about.
  This is not a partisan issue. A cosponsor of this amendment is the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), Republican, cochair of the Tobacco 
Task Force on Health in the Congress, an outstanding Republican Member 
of this body. He is a cosponsor of this amendment. So this is not a 
partisan amendment.
  It is not about politics. It is about whether or not the Federal 
Government is going to move forward and try to find a way to make whole 
the Veterans Administration, that nearly $4 billion a year that has to 
be accounted for. In fact, in the 105th Congress, we told the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century that they should take, and I quote

[[Page 11304]]

again, ``all steps necessary to recover from the tobacco companies 
amounts corresponding to the losses and the costs which would be 
incurred by the Department of Veterans Affairs for treatments.'' We 
told them to go get this money.
  Support the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we all recognize that it is politically correct to be 
able to attack the tobacco industry in its totality today. In the 
spirit of full disclosure, I will have to admit that I do represent a 
large number of tobacco farmers. But this really has nothing to do 
about tobacco farmers.
  The Waxman amendment, as has been said by many people before I am 
speaking right now, indicates, and it is true, that under the Waxman 
amendment, the Department of Justice will be able to take money from 
the veterans' medical care dollars to finance a speculative lawsuit 
under the theory of which the Federal Government has never filed one 
like this before. So that is one reason to oppose this amendment, that 
it would take veterans medical care dollars to finance the lawsuit.
  Now, in September of 1999, the Federal Government filed this lawsuit 
seeking $25 billion to recover money spent by the Federal military and 
civilian insurers on smoking-related illnesses. Prior to that, the 
State attorneys general had filed a lawsuit in which the tobacco 
companies entered into an agreement to settle for about $246 billion 
over 25 years.
  I would just point out that, in 1999, all of the money that was spent 
on veterans' medical care in the United States amounted to about $17 
billion in 1999. I think it will also be interesting to know that the 
legal fees alone in the State lawsuits amounted to almost $12 billion. 
So there was almost as much money paid in legal fees in that lawsuit as 
there was spent for veterans' medical care in its totality.
  Now, another reason that I would oppose the Waxman amendment is the 
simple fact that Federal and State governments have known for more than 
30 years that smoking does create health risks. Yet, with that 
knowledge, they all permitted the sale of tobacco products and profited 
nicely from it, indeed enormously from it from the excise tax. Not only 
did the Federal Government profit from the excise tax for the sale of 
tobacco products, but the Federal Government gave cigarettes to its 
young men and women serving in the military around the world.
  So how can now the Federal Government tell tobacco companies that 
they may lawfully sell a product that the Federal Government knew would 
cause injury and then turn around and sue the companies for causing the 
injury that they knew would be occurring. That is another reason that I 
would oppose the Waxman amendment.
  Then a fourth reason I would simply say this, that the Justice 
Department's complaint is only the most recent, and I am sure it will 
not be the last effort to use litigation to bludgeon private firms in 
order to accomplish a prohibition that government could not win in the 
Congress. So since they cannot win in the Congress, they go to the 
courts under novel theories of law to collect on something that the 
Federal Government already knew was harmful and, furthermore, gave it 
to men and women serving in the military around the world.
  So those are four of the reasons that I would ask the Members to 
oppose the Waxman amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we often are on this floor wringing our hands about why 
the public treats us so contemptuously and thinks so little of us all 
too often when we know we are here to do the people's work. But every 
once in a while, a bill comes along that reinforces that low esteem 
that the American public has for us, and this is one of them. The fact 
that there is an effort right now, an organized effort to protect the 
tobacco industry from the lawsuits. That is why I am here to strongly 
support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and 
others to get rid of this rider.
  Now, I have heard the arguments, oh, well the Justice Department can 
use its own money, or the Justice Department can get it from another 
fund. But there are all these other efforts going on at the same time 
which everybody knows about that would prevent any money, even a single 
dollar going.
  We have got riders coming up in the Commerce Justice bill. There are 
riders all over the place that are trying to thwart these lawsuits 
against the tobacco industry. It would be more credible if it were not 
for the fact that the veterans are all for these lawsuits going 
forward, including the American Legion. Four of them have endorsed the 
Waxman amendment. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, AmVets, Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans have explicitly 
endorsed this amendment that would allow these lawsuits to go forward 
and this small amount of money, relatively small amount of money from a 
litigation fund to go after the tobacco companies.
  Why should we not? Tobacco-related illnesses cost the Federal 
taxpayers approximately $25 billion a year, excluding the Federal share 
of Medicaid, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid.
  The Medicare program pays $20.5 billion annually to treat tobacco-
related illness. The Department of Defense pays $1.6 billion. Indian 
Health Services pays $300 million. The Veterans Administration pays $4 
billion, not $4 million, $4 billion a year to treat tobacco-related 
illnesses.
  So why not take a portion of that overall fund, not the fund directly 
going to services, but the litigation fund to try and get some of that 
money back?
  I will tell my colleagues, I think that the American people 
understand that tobacco is costing them, it is costing them and their 
families and their lives, and it is costing their taxpayer dollars. 
These thinly veiled efforts to protect the tobacco industry are not 
going to be viewed very well by the American people. We should all 
stand up together, Republicans and Democrats, because I agree this is 
not and should not be a partisan issue. We should stand up together and 
support this amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the provision that this amendment seeks to strike reeks 
of tobacco, it reeks of special interest, and it reeks of injustice. I 
think that this rider, and of course there has been considerable 
competition through the years, but it is truly the most disgusting that 
I have seen since this same crowd came to this same House and snuck 
into a bill for small business tax relief, $50 billion in a tax credit 
for the same tobacco industry, so disgusting that once it was exposed, 
they had to back off and remove the provision.

                              {time}  1815

  Indeed, that action is one of the only bits of action that this House 
of Representatives has taken during the last 6 years to deal with that 
plague of nicotine addiction that kills thousands every day in this 
country.
  To those who say turn to the legislative branch instead of the 
judicial, Americans can look at what has happened in the last 6 years 
and rightly say that the tobacco industry has a stranglehold on this 
House. Sometimes we can prevent it from doing more wrong, but we have 
been totally unable to overcome the tremendous strength of the tobacco 
industry over the current leadership of this House to do anything 
affirmatively for the 3,000 children that every day will become 
addicted to tobacco.
  Supporters of this provision have the audacity to say we will not do 
anything about the children and their suffering from tobacco, and the 
fact that so many will eventually die from emphysema and lung cancer 
and heart disease, but we can find it in our schedule and in our hearts 
to provide more special interest treatment for this same industry. The 
friends of tobacco have the audacity to stand on this floor this 
evening and tell the American people that they are not terminating this 
lawsuit, they are just cutting off the funds necessary to its success.

[[Page 11305]]

  Let me ask my colleagues if they think Phillip Morris and RJR, and 
all the other big tobacco companies, are going to spare any funds when 
they are dealing with any thick-carpet lawyer in the country who will 
take their dirty money to defend them in this case. No, they are going 
to have an open checkbook. They are going to spend whatever it takes to 
obstruct the justice that this case deserves.
  I stood next to Janet Reno earlier in the day, with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and leaders of our veterans' 
organizations, and heard her say in no unqualified terms that the 
effect of a vote against this amendment is a vote to dismiss the well-
justified claims of American taxpayers against the tobacco industry. 
The provision that we are voting on tonight is testament to the 
weakness of big tobacco's legal case. They are seeking a motion to 
dismiss not in a court of law, relying on the justice system; no, they 
have come here to the Congress, a Congress that they have worked over 
pretty well through the years, particularly in election years. And they 
have asked the Congress to grant the motion to dismiss. This is just 
the latest underhanded maneuver in which they have engaged.
  What is at stake here is a rather clear choice. It is a choice 
between defending our veterans who have defended us or defending the 
continued wrongs of the tobacco industry. I believe we ought to stand 
with the veterans. They were there today with Attorney General Reno 
also, one veteran group after another, the Paralyzed Veterans, the 
Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, 
speaking out and asking us to defend interests, as they were willing to 
defend our country, by supporting the Waxman amendment. We owe them 
nothing less.
  And, of course, this is not the first time that big tobacco has 
trampled our veterans, just as they have trampled on our children. In 
each of the last two years I have advanced legislation in this Congress 
to give our veterans their fair claim against Saddam Hussein and his 
Iraqi assets that have been frozen for a decade. But big tobacco said, 
no, we want to go first. We want to get reimbursed for all the 
cigarettes we sold the Iraqis before our veterans get reimbursed on 
their just claims. It is that same kind of greedy attitude that they 
bring tonight to this House, saying that they deserve immunity, which 
is what they would effectively gain if the Waxman amendment is 
defeated--immunity to continue committing the same wrongs they have 
been engaging in previously.
  The American people have a much greater understanding of the wrongs 
done by the tobacco industry than this Congress has demonstrated over 
the last 6 years. 430,000 people every year will die as a result of 
tobacco, thousands will require care in hospitals and hospices. We 
ought to be able to remove at least some of the tremendous cost of the 
care incurred for the American taxpayer and for the American veteran.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment.
  I do this as a public health nurse, for I have seen firsthand the 
serious consequences of smoking-related illnesses, and I am appalled at 
the behavior of the tobacco firms. This is a time when accountability 
is called for.
  We speak here today on behalf of our constituents. And I am speaking 
on behalf of the veterans I represent. I know their national leaders 
were here today testifying to the Justice Department, but they have 
spoken to me directly and to many of us across this country, as they 
are bearing the price for what has happened throughout the decades as a 
result of their exposure and addiction to tobacco in the call of their 
military duty. We need to speak for them.
  I speak also for other citizens in my district, citizens who are 
aware and are aroused by the injustices that have been done. I think of 
a particular physician in San Luis Obispo, Dr. Steve Hanson, tireless 
in his work on tobacco-use prevention among young people in our 
community but also on the need for treatment to be available, working 
through the American Medical Association and the San Luis Obispo 
Medical Society, an articulate voice on behalf of the justice that 
needs to be done in this case.
  This amendment will allow for the continuation of litigation to 
recover tobacco-related health costs that have burdened the American 
taxpayer for many years. The cigarettes that were put into GI rations 
and unwittingly caused addictions are now being borne out in the health 
and illness situations of so many of our seniors who are veterans and 
who are paying terrific consequences with their lives, suffering from 
emphysema, heart disease, and cancer as they are aging. These 
individuals need and cry out for a response that needs to be stimulated 
and encouraged in this body.
  Janet Reno has stated that if this rider to the VA-HUD appropriation 
passes, the Department of Justice would have no ability to continue in 
their crucial litigation on behalf of veterans. This amendment protects 
veterans. Under the Medical Care Recovery Act, any recovery of these 
tobacco costs would go directly to the VA and defense health programs.
  As Members consider their votes, I urge them to remember that the 
tobacco companies concealed what they knew about the damaging health 
effects of smoking for decades. During those same decades, the 
consequences of smoking were played out in the lives of citizens across 
this country, and veterans' lives as well; and the cost has been borne 
by everyone. No other industry is close to matching the cigarette 
companies' record of misconduct and harm to the public interest.
  If Congress intervenes in the judicial with this VA-HUD rider, the 
tobacco industry will receive unprecedented and unwarranted protection 
that will never be available to other more responsible companies. So 
Congress must hold Big Tobacco accountable, and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Waxman amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not plan to speak on this amendment, but I was 
listening to the discussion back in my office and I thought, how silly 
do we think the American people are.
  I think it was 62 years ago, I am 72 at the present time, when my 
mother and father said, There will be no use of tobacco in this house; 
it is addictive and it is injurious to your health. That was 62 years 
ago, and here we stand and we say, boy, people lied to us and we did 
not know it. Now, my colleagues know that that is nonsense. We have 
known it for a long, long, long, time.
  But I am also surprised when we stand down here and we talk about the 
cost of tobacco. There is not anyone, probably in this House, who is a 
leading campaigner against the use of tobacco. One of our young 
Congressmen when I first came here, a diabetic, a chain smoker, I tried 
and tried and tried my best to help him break the habit, but he could 
not and he died very young.
  I am amazed when we talk about the cost, when no one talks about 
alcohol. My attorney general came to me and said, we have to have this 
money; we have to have this money, boy, the cost to Medicaid and 
Medicare. And I said, wait a minute, the cost to Medicaid and Medicare, 
the cost to veterans health? Talk about alcohol. It is only about 10, 
12, 15, 20 times as great in relationship to the cost, but it goes way 
beyond that. Abusive in the home, physical abuse, mental abuse, and on 
and on the list goes. And yet somehow or other we do not take that on 
because, I suppose, it is socially acceptable; and so we talk about 
tobacco.
  Then someone indicated that, well, tobacco has their hands on the 
Congress. Well, tobacco may have their hands on some individuals in the 
Congress, as it does on individuals all over the country, but it has 
nothing to do with one's ability to think clearly about the issue. So, 
again, I just do not understand what it is we are trying to do in 
relationship to this amendment other than try to confuse the public 
that somehow or other there are few in

[[Page 11306]]

this Congress who really are fighting this issue and that we did not 
know it was addictive and we did not know that it caused health 
problems, when, of course, we have known that for 50, 60, 70, 80 years.
  In the last 20 or 30, as a matter of fact, signs have been 
everywhere, and put there by the Government, indicating that it is 
injurious to our health and that it is addictive.
  So I think we ought to switch. If we want to move money, move it, but 
then give a good reason for doing it. But, for goodness sakes, we 
should not try to make the public think that we know more than they, 
and that they do not know already that it is an addictive issue and it 
is also a health problem.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Waxman-Hansen-Evans-
Meehan amendment. This amendment will remove the rider in this bill 
that prohibits the Department of Veterans Affairs from aiding the 
Justice Department in its suit against Big Tobacco.
  And in response to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I 
would say that tobacco is addictive. It has been proven to be 
addictive. And alcohol has caused all sorts of problems in this 
country, there is all sorts of abuse of alcohol; but it is not 
addictive in the same way.
  No industry, no industry deserves a special exemption from Federal 
liability, and without help from the VA, the Justice Department will 
have to drop its suit against the big tobacco companies. We should not 
be legislating special protections for an industry that has lied to the 
Congress and deceived the American people.
  The VA spends more than $4 billion annually treating tobacco-related 
illnesses. If the Justice Department's suit is successful, and I 
believe that it will be, the VA will recover billions of dollars spent 
on health care for veterans. If this amendment fails, then the bill 
will prevent the VA from obtaining billions of dollars to help veterans 
who suffer from tobacco-related illnesses.
  Why should we not help those veterans? They need our help, and we 
ought to stand with them. We should not be trying to bail out Big 
Tobacco.
  This amendment does not take $1 away from veterans' health care. It 
uses money in the VA's administrative and legal expenses account to 
help fund the suit against Big Tobacco. Yet the tobacco companies are 
spending enormous amounts of money and working hard to convince Members 
that the Waxman amendment takes away from veterans' health care. That 
is absolutely false.
  In 1998, we passed a highway bill here in this House that became law. 
And in that legislation is language that urges the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of the VA to sue the tobacco companies so that money 
could be recovered to go to veterans' health care. And what we see in 
this bill today is a provision that would nullify what we did in 1998. 
It would prevent that money from being used, the litigation money, from 
being used to recover money for our veterans.
  Since when, Mr. Chairman, have the tobacco companies cared about the 
health of the American people? They make a product, which used as 
directed, kills people. Their future prosperity depends on enticing 
young people to take up smoking. They swore they were not doing that 
just a few years ago, and we have found since that it was not true.
  The tobacco companies want relief from a legitimate lawsuit at the 
expense of our veterans. A vote for this amendment is a vote for 
veterans' health care and against the unlimited greed of the tobacco 
industry. Vote ``yes'' on the Waxman amendment.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very proud today to stand as one of the sponsors 
of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan), for their leadership on this issue.
  I stood on the floor a year ago asking that we fully fund veterans 
health care through the independent budget. We were not successful at 
that time, although there was a lot of discussion about the importance 
of veterans' health care. We have yet to fully fund at the level that 
has been put forward by the veterans' organizations to fully fund 
veterans' health care.
  This amendment is supported by the Veterans for Foreign Wars, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, and 
AMVETS. This amendment is about keeping our word. Very simple. It is 
very simple. As my colleagues have said, in 1998, in the transportation 
bill, we said that dollars would be removed for service-related tobacco 
illnesses. Rather than moving ahead at that time, in fact, we called on 
the VA, in the budget bill, to take all steps necessary to recover from 
the tobacco companies.

                              {time}  1830

  So this was 2 years ago we passed a bill that says all steps 
necessary to recover from the tobacco companies. Two years later, we 
are here with a bill that says they cannot sue the tobacco companies.
  What happened in the last 2 years? What happened is a sleight of hand 
and an unwillingness to keep commitments that were made to our veterans 
just 2 years ago. And I am deeply concerned about that. We told them 
that they had to be part of the tobacco suit to recover costs so that 
they could treat tobacco-related illnesses. Now we are saying they 
cannot do that. It does not make any sense.
  We know that the VA spends $4 billion annually on treating tobacco-
related illnesses, the Defense Department spends $1.6 billion. If we 
allow them to continue to be a part of the suit, under the Medical Care 
Recovery Act, any recovery of costs will be returned back to them so 
that our veterans can be cared for. And this is tens of billions of 
dollars.
  In addition to that, there are implications for the Medicare Trust 
Fund that are very important. Medicare spends $20.5 billion a year on 
tobacco-related illnesses for our older Americans, seniors, disabled. 
Under the suit, the Medicare Secondary Payor Provisions, any recovery 
of these costs would go right back to Medicare; and if the lawsuit is 
funded and successful, these dollars could add years to the solvency of 
the Medicare Trust Fund, continue health care for older Americans and 
the disabled for years into the future, and, most importantly, allow us 
to fund a prescription drug benefit.
  I have been deeply involved in this issue. For the last year, I have 
had a hotline set up in the State of Michigan asking people to share 
their stories of situations where they are struggling to pay the costs 
of prescription drugs. I have been deluged with letters and phone 
calls, people sitting down every night at the table, do I get my food? 
do I pay my electric bill? or do I get my medications?
  If we allow this lawsuit to go forward, we can do something about 
that. If we allow these funds to be transferred to support this effort, 
we can hold an industry accountable that needs to be held accountable 
and we can make sure that our veterans have the commitment kept to them 
that we made 2 years ago to support their efforts to increase dollars 
available for veterans' health care as a part of this lawsuit.
  It is time to stop protecting the tobacco companies in this House of 
Representatives, and it is time to start keeping our word to our 
veterans.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment. The 
legislation that we are considering right now that the gentleman in 
California (Mr. Waxman) and others seek to amend should have, in fact, 
some help from the Government Printing Office so that the package 
around this legislation has a warning label that states, ``Warning: 
this legislation may be hazardous to your health and the health of 
every American who has a family member who smokes.''

[[Page 11307]]

  Part of me, Mr. Chairman, cannot believe that we are actually on the 
floor engaged in a debate about whether or not the tobacco companies 
should be granted immunity against Federal lawsuits. And then part of 
me realizes that I should not be surprised at all.
  Two years ago, the tobacco companies came before the Committee on 
Commerce and swore that the proposed settlement worked out with the 
State did not contain immunity for their industry. The CEOs claimed 
that they wanted to work with us, that it was the dawn of a new era. 
And yet, at the same time, they hired a public relations firm to 
develop a cynical $20 million ad campaign to, quote, create the basis 
for an exit strategy, ideally, that the industry made a legitimate 
offer and that the politicians played politics and made a mess out of 
it.
  Well, their cynical ploy worked. Congress killed comprehensive 
tobacco legislation after the industry poured millions of dollars into 
the Republican campaign coffers. Well, Mr. Chairman, they get what they 
pay for. No comprehensive tobacco legislation. And now let us stop the 
Justice Department from suing to get back some money for the American 
taxpayers.
  Under the underlying bill that we are debating today, a rider stuck 
to it will de-fund the tobacco litigation that the Department of 
Justice has initiated on behalf of the Departments of Veterans Affairs 
and Defense and Health and Human Services. In fact, the language in 
this bill states, in the most direct terms, that no money budgeted for 
litigation support may be used for the purposes of supporting 
litigation against tobacco companies.
  This is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Government spends $20 
billion annually on Medicare related to tobacco-induced illness costs. 
The same thing is true for the VA. The same thing is true for Indian 
services. All the way down the line.
  Now, what a message that this bill sends. It says, no day in court 
for our seniors who rely on Medicare, no day in court for our veterans, 
no day in court for our men and women in uniform, no day in court for 
Native Americans, no day in court for the millions upon millions of 
Americans ravaged by tobacco-related illnesses.
  It is bad enough that the 1997 balanced budget amendment cut so much 
money out of Medicare, but it compounds the crime immeasurably to then 
say that the Federal Government cannot sue to collect money from the 
tobacco industry that can be used for the health care of these ordinary 
Americans.
  Four hundred, thirty thousand Americans die each year from tobacco-
related deaths. Four hundred, thirty thousand Americans die each year. 
One in five deaths in the United States are related to tobacco-related 
illnesses. Three thousand kids every single day in the United States 
take up smoking. Three thousand a day. One thousand of them are going 
to die from a tobacco-related illness.
  The veterans who 30 and 40 and 50 years ago were given packs of 
cigarettes, they were given, basically, a one-in-three chance of dying 
from the addiction that would be caused by that free pack of cigarettes 
which was handed to them. We owe these veterans and we owe all who have 
suffered from tobacco-related illnesses the right to be able to go to 
court, the right to be able to say to those who were the primary cause 
of illness in our society that they must pay those families and the 
Federal Government for what they have done.
  We are at the dawn of a new century. One in three babies born in the 
United States today has a chance of living to the age of 100. We, we 
who hold out so much promise for this country, have it within our power 
to do something to ensure that there is, without question, the 
strongest possible disincentive created for the tobacco industry doing 
in the 21st century what it did in the 20th century to the health of 
our veterans.


               Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138, 
noes 243, not voting 53, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               AYES--138

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield

[[Page 11308]]


     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--53

     Bachus
     Bilbray
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Coburn
     Cook
     Cooksey
     DeLay
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hayes
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klink
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meeks (NY)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Owens
     Oxley
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Shays
     Shuster
     Vento

                              {time}  1859

  Messrs. Shows, LaHood, McInnis and Bentsen changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent from the vote 
earlier this evening. Had I been here, I would have voted against the 
motion to rise--rollcall vote 292.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Waxman-Hansen-Meehan amendment. Tobacco use is responsible for 430,000 
premature deaths each year. Smoking kills by causing chronic lung 
disease, coronary heart disease and stroke, as well as cancer of the 
lungs, larynx, esophagus, mouth and bladder.
  Tobacco use is the leading cause of premature death in the United 
States, Mr. Chairman. It causes one out of every five deaths. In fact, 
tobacco use causes twice the number of deaths caused by AIDS, alcohol, 
motor vehicles, homicide, drugs, and suicide combined. Tobacco causes 
twice the number of deaths of all of those diseases and accidents 
combined. If current trends continue, an estimated 25 million Americans 
who are alive today will die prematurely from smoke-related illnesses, 
including an estimated 5 million children.
  Tobacco-related illnesses cost the Federal taxpayer approximately $25 
billion a year, excluding the Federal share of Medicaid.
  To have a provision that prohibits the Veterans Administration from 
transferring funds to the Justice Department to support litigation 
against the tobacco companies is wrong, and I would hope this Congress 
would be able to stand up and say, no, we want to be able to have some 
repayment for the diseases and illness that our veterans have been 
afflicted by.
  The Medicare program pays approximately $20.5 billion annually to 
treat tobacco-related illnesses; the Veterans Administration pays in 
excess of $1 billion per year. The Department of Defense pays $1.6 
billion per year. The Indian Health Services pays $300 million a year. 
In addition, tobacco-related health costs the Medicaid program nearly 
$17 billion a year, of which Federal taxpayers pay nearly $10 billion. 
Overall public and private payments for tobacco-related care totaled 
nearly $90 billion in 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, to remove VA appropriations for the tobacco litigation 
hurts our veterans. It is our duty to provide as many dollars as 
possible for our vets, especially since our government encouraged 
tobacco use and tobacco addiction by our young service personnel, not 
only during World War II but during the Korean War.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reading a book now about the Chosin Reservoirs and 
the heroes of that Korean War, particularly the Chosin Reservoir, and 
instance after instance, when the temperature, was well below zero, 
oftentimes the only thing they had were cigarettes. Those cigarettes 
were provided by our government.
  Those Korean War veterans are up in years. We should be able to 
provide for them to be treated in our VA hospitals, and, again, not 
just by the dollars we appropriate, but by the dollars that we can 
generate from litigation because of their addiction and the diseases 
that they have because of that.
  Again, this amendment is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans, and AMVETS; and I 
think, Mr. Chairman, particularly this year, less than 2 weeks ago, we 
talked about it at our Memorial Day services all over the country, in 
recognizing our veterans' contribution that in this year, particularly, 
since we are recognizing Korean War veterans that the Waxman-Hansen-
Meehan amendment should be adopted, and we should remove this 
provision.
  I would hope that no matter what appropriations bill we come to, that 
we would not tie the hands of the Justice Department to say, no, we 
need to have tobacco-related lawsuits. Again, it is not our decision 
it, is up to the judges or the juries ultimately; but it would allow 
for us to recoup that money to be able to again treat more veterans for 
hopefully other illnesses that are not tobacco related and thereby 
provide it back to the veterans' program next year and the year after.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________