[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11726-11815]
[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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4635.

                              {time}  1245


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
January 20, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line 
22, to page 58 line 14.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment 
shall be in order, except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman 
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees and the following further amendments, which may be 
offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a 
designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  The following additional amendments, debatable for 10 minutes:
  An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding VA 
mental illness research;
  An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) 
regarding the VA Right To Know Act;
  An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) regarding 
EPA estuary funding;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) regarding the 
space station;
  The amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 7, 8, 13, 
14, 15, 17, 33, 41 and 43.
  The following additional amendments debatable for 20 minutes:
  An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) regarding VA 
health and research;
  The amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 23, 34, 
and 35; and,
  The following additional amendments debatable for 30 minutes:
  An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding 
NSF;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) regarding 
clean air;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) regarding FEMA;
  An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) 
regarding the Kyoto Protocol;
  And the amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 3, 4, 
24, 25, and 39.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 environmental programs and management

       For environmental programs and management, including 
     necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel 
     and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or 
     allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     services as authorized

[[Page 11727]]

     by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for 
     senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft; 
     purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or 
     associations which issue publications to members only or at a 
     price to members lower than to subscribers who are not 
     members; construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, 
     and renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per 
     project; and not to exceed $6,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, $1,900,000,000, which shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose 
     or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the 
     purpose of implementation, or in preparation for 
     implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on 
     December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference of 
     the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate 
     for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, 
     and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 
     of the Protocol: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used to implement or 
     administer the interim guidance issued on February 5, 1998, 
     by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to title VI 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and designated as the 
     ``Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative 
     Complaints Challenging Permits'' with respect to complaints 
     filed under such title after October 21, 1998, and until 
     guidance is finalized. Nothing in this proviso may be 
     construed to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency 
     from developing or issuing final guidance relating to title 
     VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available in this or any prior Act may 
     be used to make a final determination on or implement any new 
     rule relative to the Proposed Revisions to the National 
     Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal 
     Antidegradation Policy and the Proposed Revisions to the 
     Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning 
     Total Maximum Daily Loads, published in the Federal Register 
     on August 23, 1999.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Saxton

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Saxton:
       Page 59, line 6, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $33,900,000)''.
       Page 74, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $33,900,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, January 
20, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase the 
funding by $33.9 million under the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Environmental Programs and Management Account to fund the National 
Estuary Program.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Estuary Program has been a tremendous 
success, but is drastically underfunded. This year's appropriation 
provides approximately $18 million for this purpose, and it is 
inadequate to fund the National Estuary Program for the 28 estuaries 
that are included in the program.
  If anyone is from almost any coastal State where there is a high 
density population in a coastal area you will find that your estuaries 
are under stress. And the National Estuary Program, which came into 
being a number of years ago, was set up to provide for a partnership 
arrangement between the Federal Government and Federal dollars and 
State and local people who know well the problems involving their 
estuaries and who know well how to study and fashion solutions for 
various types of estuarine problems.
  I first became aware of this program with the trip to Narragansett 
Bay, which was part of the National Estuary Program, a number of years 
ago. Then Representative Claudine Schneider introduced me to the 
problems of Narragansett Bay; and now, 10 years later, because of the 
National Estuary Program, Narragansett Bay is well on its way to 
recovery. I wish I could say the same was true for all of the estuaries 
that are included in the National Estuary Program, but such is simply 
not the case.
  We need to move forward with this program, and we need to fashion a 
financial program that will adequately take care of these needs. 
Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing coastal 
environments. With the establishment of this program as section 320 of 
the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Water Act amendments of 1987, this 
program was passed by the House on May 8, 2000, to reauthorize it. We 
also authorized an appropriation of $50 million for fiscal year 2001 
for the purpose of facilitating the State and local governments 
preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan, CCMPs, 
for threatened and impaired estuaries.
  This is a simple, straightforward program that addresses a variety of 
unique needs of these stressed bodies of water. I rise to urge an aye 
vote on this amendment, as I think it is extremely important to coastal 
areas, coastal States, and the inhabitants thereof.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am reluctantly opposed to the Saxton amendment. The 
gentleman has shown through proven leadership throughout his years in 
the Congress a dedication to, certainly the New Jersey shoreline and 
the estuaries all over the country, which as we know are the most 
productive areas of our waters in terms of wildlife and fish life.
  While I am sympathetic to the amendment of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), I would have to say that the estuary program is 
fully funded at the President's request level. In fact, we have taken 
great pains to fully fund this program every year. For fiscal year 
2001, the program would receive almost $17 million, a slight decrease 
from last year's level of $18 million, an increase over the 1999 level 
of $16.5 million.
  In addition to this general estuary program, we also fund through 
EPA's specific estuary-related programs for wetlands, including South 
Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, 
Pacific Northwest, and Lake Champlain. Together these programs total 
over $63 million for each of year 2000 and 2001.
  The Saxton amendment would nearly triple what we now have provided 
for this program. In addition, the Saxton amendment would take funds, 
important funds from NASA and we have already taken $55 million out of 
NASA in the production of this bill through the amendments.
  This cut would further reduce their ability to adequately operate 
programs, so I would urge a no vote on the Saxton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
       On page 59, line 19, after the word ``Protocol'', insert: 
     Provided further, That any limitation imposed under this Act 
     on funds made available by this Act for the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall not apply to activities specified in 
     the previous proviso related to the Kyoto Protocol which are 
     otherwise authorized by law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, of Tuesday, June 
20, 2000, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the amendment be read?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is considered as read. Without objection, 
the Clerk can read the amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 11728]]

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is short and clear. It simply affirms the 
agreement which has been in effect the last 2 years after painstaking 
negotiations by the House, the Senate, and the executive branch in 
passing the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the final fiscal VA-HUD conference committee bill 
contained limitation language which is used again in this year's bill. 
The accompanying conference report language was only approved after 
extensive negotiation.
  But the conferees specifically agreed, and I quote in part: ``The 
conferees recognize that there are longstanding energy research 
programs which could have positive effects on energy use and the 
environment. The conferees do not intend to preclude these programs 
from proceeding, provided that they have been funded and approved by 
Congress.''
  For fiscal 2001 again we have the same bill language as fiscal 1999 
and fiscal 2000, but the report language this year has been greatly 
changed and goes far beyond the carefully negotiated fiscal 1999 
conference agreement.
  Without my amendment, this report language can be construed to limit 
even longstanding authorized and funded programs, our renewable energy 
research and development programs to promote clean power, our program 
to develop new homes that are 50 percent more energy efficient and save 
families dollars, our program to reduce methane emissions because 
methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, and even the 
Clean Air Act which became law with the initiative and strong support 
of President Nixon a generation ago.
  All are geared towards reducing greenhouse gases and have been 
approved and funded by this Congress, but could be jeopardized.
  Mr. Chairman, the language of my amendment allows the EPA to operate 
as it has over the last 2 years under the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD conference 
agreement and the accompanying negotiated report language. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is different than the 
amendment that we had previously. Now, the amendment that was given to 
me previously provided a little bit different picture than what I think 
this amendment does. We like the idea that we are now dealing with 
activities which have been the thing that we have been looking at for a 
long time.
  If I am not mistaken, and I would like some clarification from the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the language that we were 
prepared to accept was a slightly different variation from what the 
gentleman has included here.
  I will read the language, not that the gentleman needs to know; but 
this body needs to know exactly what was inserted in your previous 
language, and it said ``provided further that any limitation imposed 
under this act on funds made available by this act for the 
Environmental Protection Agency shall not apply to activities related 
to the Kyoto Protocol which are otherwise authorized by law.''
  I ask the gentleman to help me, if he will, but my understanding is 
that now the gentleman has changed this to saying in the third line 
``shall not apply to activities specified in the previous proviso 
related to the Kyoto Protocol.''
  I ask the gentleman what exactly has the gentleman changed here from 
the previous wording?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we were apprised last night that the language as the 
gentleman has read it, in fact, left a question of interpretation as to 
what the words ``activities related to the Kyoto Protocol'' would mean. 
And the Clerks advised me and others who were interested in this that 
there would be no ambiguity if the word related was tied to the very 
provisions that are in the previous proviso, which is, of course, the 
provided further proviso that gives the bill language as it has stood, 
and that, therefore, it would be limited very carefully to those items.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggested that we were 
concerned about the wording in the previous amendment? Who was 
concerned? Because we showed no such concern.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the 
clerks were concerned it was ambiguous, the language with the word 
``related,'' and there would be some question to determine what was 
related to the proviso. In this instance, it is clearly tied to those 
items which are listed in the previous proviso, but are also authorized 
and funded by previous law.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me proceed 
with my comments, because I do want to resolve this in a fashion that 
is acceptable. My immediate view was, why was the language changed? No 
one presented that change to me. So let me proceed with my comments. I 
appreciate the gentleman's explanation of why the change, but it 
certainly was not one that came from our side.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), and the others for the recognition of the original and 
enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now, 
specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the 
fatally flawed, in my judgment, unratified, Kyoto Protocol.
  I am grateful for the acknowledgment of the administration's plea for 
clarification. The whole Nation I think needs to hear the plea of this 
administration in the words of the coordinator of all environmental 
policy for this administration, George Frampton. In his position as 
acting chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, on March 1 of 
this year and on behalf of the administration, he stated this before 
the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee: ``Just to finish our 
dialogue here, my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the 
scope of the language which gives rise to our wanting to not have the 
continuation of this uncertainty next year.''
  Mr. Chairman, I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) when he stated to the administration, ``You're nuts,'' upon 
learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore 
negotiated.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his focus on the activities. 
I think that is important, of this administration, both authorized and 
unauthorized.
  As I read this amendment, it appears to be now fully consistent with 
the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in current 
appropriations laws. First, no agency, including EPA, can proceed with 
activities that are not authorized or not funded; second, no new 
authority is granted to EPA; third, since neither the United Nations 
framework convention on climate change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-
executing, and I repeat that, they are not self-executing, specific 
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or 
initiative; fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and 
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing 
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had numerous communications with key agencies 
about the propriety of some of their activities. In most cases there 
has been a reasoned response that indicates there is recognition that 
some activities can cross the line and be implementation of the Kyoto 
Protocol.
  Apparently, President Clinton agrees with us, since he has been clear 
in his statements that he has no intention of implementing the Kyoto 
Protocol before it is ratified by the U.S. Senate. I think we have to 
assure the American taxpayers that they will not pay the bill for 
activities that are not legal.
  In my view, this amendment, after looking at it a second time, the 
second

[[Page 11729]]

amendment prepared by the presenter, is consistent with the position 
that we have been taking since 1998; and we all know the EPA has been 
challenged by the courts on their abuse of the Clean Air Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Law, and an effort to use internal guidance in 
contravention of legal requirements. Because of the recent activities 
of the EPA, I just wanted to take this time to thoroughly and carefully 
review this bill language and consider the content of report language 
that will be necessary to explain it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to again say to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), I do 
think you are focusing on the kernel here that we have to focus on; and 
in that regard, I do want to offer some time to my colleagues to 
comment as well, and I am sure the gentleman does as well.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 2000.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. We write to express our strong support 
     for the inclusion of the Knollenberg provision in the Foreign 
     Operations and Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations 
     bills for Fiscal Year 2001. This same provision has also been 
     adopted in report language contained in the Subcommittee 
     Report drafted by the Commerce, Justice, and State 
     Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
       As you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto 
     Climate Change Protocol sometime ago but decided not to 
     submit this treaty to the United States Senate for 
     ratification. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the 
     United States while exempting most countries, including 
     China, India, and Brazil, from taking any measures to reduce 
     carbon emissions. The Administration undertook this course of 
     action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate 
     for the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all 
     nations to the Protocol and on the condition that it not 
     adversely impact the economy of the United States.
       We believe that the Knollenberg provision is required to 
     preserve the Congress's authority to ratify treaties prior to 
     their implementation. We are also concerned that actions 
     taken by several Federal agencies, including the State 
     Department and the Agency for International Development, 
     constitute the implementation of this treaty before its 
     submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the 
     United States. The Knollenberg provision is required to block 
     any further implementation of the proposed treaty by the 
     executive branch until Congress addresses this matter. We 
     wish to be clear that this provision will not in any way 
     inhibit the ability of the Administration to negotiate 
     international treaties or conduct the foreign policy of the 
     United States. Rather, this provision seeks to preserve the 
     proper consultation and review process with regard to 
     international agreements that has been reserved to the 
     Congress by the Constitution of the United States.
       Thank you for your kind consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
     Benjamin A. Gilman.
     F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
                                  ____



                                        Committee on Commerce,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1999.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government 
         Reform.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based 
     on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by 
     the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the 
     Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as 
     methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call 
     my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to 
     Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation 
     Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The 
     Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean 
     Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The 
     latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 
     1990 amendments.
       First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any 
     provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, 
     such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address 
     global climate change. The House, however, did include 
     provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on 
     Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
       Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed 
     amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points 
     out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and 
     global warming, along with provisions implementing the 
     Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol 
     related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate 
     conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
       However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of 
     November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the 
     CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 
     819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions 
     separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers 
     to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public Law 
     does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all 
     of the provisions included the Public Law.
       One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, 
     entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases 
     Contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United 
     States Code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires 
     regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide 
     emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V'' 
     of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be 
     reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon 
     dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose.
       Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled 
     ``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time 
     by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no 
     regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title 
     amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) 
     through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution 
     Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory 
     strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.'' 
     While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon 
     dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never 
     agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for 
     regulatory or other purposes.
       Based on my review of this history and my recollection of 
     the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the 
     House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory 
     provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced 
     section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas 
     emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air 
     Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the 
     United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 
     the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately 
     led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was 
     ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the 
     Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, 
     and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation 
     authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse 
     gases.
       I hope that this is responsive.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2000.
     Hon. Gary S. Guzy,
     General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency.
       Dear Mr. Guzy: Thank you for your February 16, 2000 letter 
     responding to our December 10, 1999 letter examining the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) legal authority 
     with respect to carbon dioxide (CO2). After 
     studying your answers to our questions, we are more convinced 
     than ever that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize EPA 
     to regulate CO2. Indeed, we find it amazing that 
     EPA claims authority to regulate CO2 when the 
     legislative history of the CAA--particularly in 1990--does 
     not support such a claim and when Congress, since 1978, has 
     consistently enacted only non-regulatory laws on climate 
     change and greenhouse gases. Furthermore, some of your 
     answers asserting that EPA has not yet considered certain 
     basic legal issues are not credible.
       To make clear why your February 16th letter has only 
     reinforced our conviction that EPA may not lawfully regulate 
     CO2, we review below each of your answers in the 
     order of the questions posed.
       Your response to Q1 of our December 10th letter addresses 
     an argument we pointedly and explicitly did not make and 
     sidesteps the argument we did make. You write: ``As we stated 
     previously, specific mention of a pollutant in a statutory 
     provision is not a necessary prerequisite to regulation under 
     many CAA statutory provisions.'' We agreed with this 
     observation in Q3 of our October l4th letter and again in Q1 
     of our December 10th letter, where we acknowledge that the 
     CAA sensibly allows EPA to regulate substances not 
     specifically mentioned in the CAA when such regulation is 
     necessary to ``fill in gaps'' in existing regulatory 
     programs. Yet you repeat that observation as though we had 
     taken the position that EPA may not regulate any substance 
     unless it is listed in a regulatory provision of the CAA.
       Our point was different, to wit: Congress was quite 
     familiar with the theory of human-induced global warming when 
     it amended the CAA in 1990; and, consequently, the fact that 
     the CAA nowhere lists CO2 as a substance to be 
     regulated is ``evidence'' (note: we did not say proof) that 
     Congress chose not to authorize EPA to launch a regulatory 
     global warming mitigation program. EPA's assertion, that the 
     absence of CO2 from all CAA regulatory provisions furnishes 
     no evidence against EPA's claim that it may regulate 
     CO2, strikes us as unreasonable, especially in 
     light of Congress' practice, in amendment after amendment to 
     the CAA, of specifically designating substances for 
     regulation.

[[Page 11730]]

       In addition, we are troubled by the apparent implication of 
     your statement, ``Congress did not in 1990 limit the 
     potential applicability of any of the CAA regulatory 
     provisions to CO2.'' You seem to suggest that, if 
     Congress did not expressly forbid EPA from regulating 
     CO2, EPA must be presumed to have such power. That 
     implication, we think, contradicts the core premise of 
     administrative law, namely, that agencies have no inherent 
     regulatory power, only that which Congress intentionally and 
     specifically delegates.
       We do not find persuasive your response to Q2 of our 
     December 10th letter, We asked, ``if Congress intended to 
     delegate to EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, 
     why did it admonish EPA not to assume such authority in the 
     only CAA provisions [sections 103(g) and 602(e)] dealing with 
     CO2 and global warming?'' You answer that those 
     sections are nonregulatory, and that Congress ``would not 
     intend the Agency to regulate substances under authorities 
     provided for nonregulatory activities.'' You then conclude 
     that the admonitory language of those provisions ``does not 
     directly or indirectly limit the regulatory authorities 
     provided to the Agency elsewhere in the Act.'' We agree that 
     the admonitory language does not repeal by implication any 
     existing authority provided elsewhere in the CAA. However, we 
     do not agree that, when Congress enacted that language, it 
     was merely affirming a tautology (i.e., nonregulatory 
     authorities cannot authorize regulatory programs). It is far 
     more likely that Congress meant to caution EPA against 
     assuming an authority that does not in fact exist.
       Please again recall the legislative history surrounding 
     Title VI. When Congress enacted Title VI, it also rejected a 
     Senate version known as Title VII, the ``Stratospheric Ozone 
     and Climate Protection Act,'' which would have required EPA 
     to regulate greenhouse gases. The admonitory language of 
     section 602(e) states that EPA's study of the global warming 
     potential of ozone-depleting substances ``shall not be 
     construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under 
     this chapter [i.e., the CAA].'' This is very significant 
     because it means Congress was not content just to reject 
     Title VII. Congress also thought it necessary to state in 
     Title VI that it was in no way authorizing a greenhouse gas 
     regulatory scheme.
       The admonitory language of section 103(g) is also worth 
     quoting. EPA's whole case boils down to the argument that 
     section 103(g) refers to CO2 as an ``air 
     pollutant,'' and the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate air 
     pollutants. This argument is incredibly weak. To begin with, 
     under section 302(g) of the CAA, the term ``air pollutant'' 
     does not automatically apply to any substance emitted into 
     the ambient air. Such a substance must also be an ``air 
     pollution agent or combination of such agents.'' EPA has 
     never determined that CO2 is an air pollution 
     ``agent.'' More importantly, the admonitory language of 
     section 103(g) is unequivocal: ``Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to authorize the imposition on any person 
     of air pollution control requirements'' (emphasis added). If 
     nothing in section 103(g) shall be construed to authorize the 
     imposition of air pollution control requirements, then the 
     reference therein to CO2 as a ``pollutant'' should 
     not be construed to be a basis for regulatory action. EPA's 
     case is further undermined by Congressman John Dingell's 
     commentary on the legislative history connected with section 
     103(g). In his October 5, 1999 letter to Chairman McIntosh, 
     Rep. Dingell wrote: ``While it [section 103(g)] refers, as 
     noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a 
     `pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to 
     designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory 
     purposes.''
       We find disturbing your response to Q3 of our December 10th 
     letter. Citing the very passage of Chevron v. NRDC quoted by 
     EPA in its December 1st letter, we asked whether there was 
     not a vital, practical distinction between EPA's filling a 
     ``gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress'' in a 
     ``congressionally created . . . program'' and EPA's creating 
     new programs without express Congressional authorization. 
     Your answers to Q3(a) and N do not acknowledge that EPA is in 
     any meaningful way constrained by the distinction between 
     filling gaps and creating programs.
       In addition, we believe your answer to Q3(c) lacks 
     credibility. We asked whether EPA's authority to control 
     substances based upon their global warming potential ``is as 
     clear and certain and unambiguous as EPA's authority to 
     control substances based upon their impact on ambient air 
     quality, their toxicity, or their potential to damage the 
     ozone layer.'' Rather than acknowledge the obvious (i.e., 
     EPA's regulatory authority with respect to CO2 
     rests on a tortuous interpretation at best), you reply that 
     ``EPA has not evaluated the strength of the technical and 
     legal basis for such findings under any particular provision 
     of the Act,'' because it has ``no current plans'' to regulate 
     CO2. While that statement is welcome assurance in 
     light of the Knollenberg limitation, it leaves a void as to 
     the legal basis for EPA's view of its authority.
       Your answer to Q4 of our December 10th letter is similarly 
     nonresponsive. We noted that, under CAA section 112(b)(2), 
     EPA may not classify an ambient air pollutant like sulfur 
     dioxide (SO2) as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
     unless it ``independently meets the listing criteria'' of 
     section 112. In Q4(a), we asked: ``What are the criteria for 
     listing under section 112 that SO2 and the other 
     ambient air pollutants do not independently meet?'' Your 
     reply corrects our formulation by pointing out that an 
     ambient air pollutant may be listed as a HAP only if it is an 
     ambient air pollutant ``precursor'' and ``meets the criteria 
     for listing under section 112(b)(2).'' However, you did not 
     state what those criteria are; you did not explain the 
     specific difference between an ambient air pollutant and a 
     HAP. In short, you did not answer our question. The reason, 
     we suspect, is that a clear statement of the criteria that a 
     substance must meet in order to be classified as a HAP would 
     also make clear that CO2 is unlike any of the 
     substances currently listed as HAPs. That, in turn, would 
     cast grave doubt on EPA's claim that section 112 is 
     ``potentially applicable'' to CO2.
       Your response to Q4(b) implies that EPA may actually have 
     greater flexibility to list CO2 as a HAP than any 
     section 108 (``ambient'') air pollutant, because 
     CO2 is not listed under section 108 and, thus, is 
     not subject to the qualification that it be a ``precursor.'' 
     We disagree. The ambient air pollution program is the 
     foundation of the CAA. The fact that Congress and EPA did not 
     list CO2 under section 108 is evidence that 
     CO2 is not a ``pollutant'' in any substantive 
     meaning of the word. The HAPs program deals with substances 
     that typically are deadlier or more injurious than ambient 
     air pollutants. However, even at many times current 
     atmospheric levels, CO2 is a benign substance 
     compared to ambient air pollutants like lead, ozone, or 
     SO2. Tberefore, the fact that Congress and EPA 
     never listed CO2 as an ambient air pollutant is an 
     argument against CO2s ever being listed as a HAP.
       Your responses to Q4(c) and (d) employ the same flawed 
     reasoning. Section 112(b) provides that no ozone-depleting 
     substance may be classified as a HAP ``solely due to its 
     adverse effects on the environment.'' Noting this 
     restriction, we asked: ``[D]oes it not stand to reason that 
     no greenhouse gas may be listed solely due to its adverse 
     environmental effect? Indeed, is not the exemption of 
     greenhouse gases from listing under section 112 even stronger 
     than that for ozone-depleting substances, inasmuch as the CAA 
     nowhere expressly authorized EPA to regulate greenhouse 
     gases?'' You replied: ``Since section 112 says nothing 
     precluding the listing of greenhouse gases (or, for that 
     matter, any other pollutants not regulated under Title VI) on 
     environmental grounds alone, EPA does not agree with the 
     conclusion in the last sentence of your question.'' Here 
     again you come close to saying that EPA may lawfully do 
     anything Congress has not expressly forbidden it to do. We 
     would suggest that Congress did not need to exempt greenhouse 
     gases from EPA's section 112 authority, because Congress 
     never gave EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases in the 
     first place.
       We regard your brief response to Q5 to be a tacit admission 
     that the HAPs framework is unsuited to control substances 
     that deplete the ozone layer. You comment that ``Congress 
     included on the section 112(b)(2) list of HAPs several 
     substances that deplete the ozone layer (e.g., methyl 
     bromide, carbon-tetrachloride [CCL4].'' However, 
     this merely shows that some ozone-depleting substances (i.e., 
     those that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic, etc.) 
     independently meet the criteria for listing under section 
     112. It does not prove that EPA could act effectively to 
     protect stratospheric ozone without new and separate 
     authority (e.g., Title VI). We also note that, in Title VI, 
     Congress did not declare any of the ozone-depleting 
     substances to be an ``air pollutant.'' This suggests that 
     EPA's authority with respect to ozone-depleting chemicals 
     comes from a specific grant by Congress, not from a 
     generalized authority to control substances emitted into the 
     air.
       We regard your answer to Q6 as nonresponsive. We pointed 
     out that stratospheric ozone depletion is, by definition, a 
     phenomenon of the stratosphere, not of the ambient air, and 
     that it differs fundamentally from ambient air pollution in 
     both its causes and remedies. We therefore asked: ``In light 
     of the foregoing considerations, do you believe the NAAQS 
     [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] program has any 
     rational application to the issue of stratospheric ozone 
     depletion?'' You responded: ``Since Title VI adequately 
     addresses stratospheric ozone depletion, EPA has not had any 
     occasion or need to undertake an evaluation of the use of the 
     NAAQS program to address this problem.'' We believe that 
     Congress' enactment of Title VI is further evidence that the 
     CAA is a carefully structured statute with specific grants of 
     authority to accomplish specific (hence limited) objectives, 
     not an undifferentiated, unlimited authority to regulate any 
     source of any substance that happens to be emitted into the 
     air.
       In Q7, we asked whether the NAAQS program, because it 
     targets local conditions of the ambient air, is unsuited to 
     address a global phenomenon of the troposphere, such as the 
     supposed enhancement of the greenhouse effect by industrial 
     emissions of CO2.''

[[Page 11731]]

     You replied: ``EPA has not reached any conclusion on this 
     question because, as already noted, the Agency has no current 
     plans to propose regulations for CO4.'' We do not 
     think it necessary for EPA to start a rulemaking in order to 
     evaluate whether a particular portion of the CAA is suited to 
     control CO2 in the context of a global warming 
     mitigation program. We regard your answer as a tacit 
     admission that EPA is unable to rebut our argument.
       In your answer to Q8, you state: ``There is nothing in the 
     text of section 302(h) and we have found nothing in its 
     history to support Mr. Glaser's speculation that the scope of 
     that provision was limited to local or regional air pollution 
     problems'' such as those arising from particulate pollution. 
     We disagree. The text in question refers to the effects of 
     pollution on ``weather, visibility and climate.'' As you note 
     in your answer to Q12, CO2 has never been 
     ``associated with visibility concerns.'' Particulate 
     pollution, on the other hand, can impair visibility as well 
     as affect local or regional weather and climate. As to the 
     legislative history, the source of the phrase ``weather, 
     visibility and climate'' in the 1970 CAA Amendments would 
     seem to be the National Air Pollution Control 
     Administration's 1969 air quality criteria for particulates, 
     which discussed the interrelated impact of fine particles on 
     weather, visibility and ``climate near the ground'' (Air 
     Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Jan. 1969). The 
     climate effects referred to were not global but local and 
     regional in nature. In any event, we find nothing in the text 
     and legislative history of section 302(h) to suggest that 
     Congress intended that provision to address CO2 in 
     the context of the issue of global warming.
       In Q9, we asked whether the NAAQS program is fundamentally 
     unsuited to address the issue of global warming, since there 
     seems to be no sensible way to set a NAAQS for 
     CO2. For example, a NAAQS for CO2 set 
     below current atmospheric levels would put the entire country 
     out of attainment, even if every power plant and factory were 
     to shut down. Conversely, a NAAQS for CO2 set 
     above current atmospheric levels would put the entire country 
     in attainment, even if U.S. coal consumption suddenly 
     doubled. You replied: ``Since EPA has no current plans to 
     propose regulations for CO2, the Agency has not 
     fully evaluated the possible applicability of various CAA 
     provisions for this purpose. At this point in time, your 
     question is entirely hypothetical.'' Whether ``hypothetical'' 
     or not, our question points out that CO2 does not 
     seem to fit into the NAAQS framework. We regard your answer 
     as a tacit admission that EPA has no idea how to set a NAAQS 
     for CO2 in the context of a global warming 
     mitigation program.
       In Q10, we noted that the attainment of a NAAQS for 
     CO2 would be impossible without extensive 
     international cooperation, and that EPA had not yet 
     determined whether CAA section 108 authorizes the designation 
     of nonattainment areas where attainment cannot be achieved 
     without international action. From these facts, we drew the 
     reasonable conclusion that, until EPA determines that the CAA 
     does grant such authority, it is ``premature'' for EPA to 
     claim that section 108 is ``potentially applicable'' to 
     CO2. You replied: ``Section 108 of the CAA 
     authorizes regulation of air pollutants if the criteria for 
     regulation under that provision are met. EPA has not yet 
     evaluated whether such criteria have been met for 
     CO2. Thus, at this time, we believe it is accurate 
     to state that section 108 (and other CAA provisions 
     authorizing regulation of air pollutants) are `potentially 
     applicable' to CO2''. We disagree. The mere fact 
     that EPA has not evaluated whether CO2 meets 
     section 108 criteria furnishes no evidence that section 108 
     is potentially applicable to CO2.
       Before examining whether CO2 meets the criteria 
     for regulation under section 108, EPA would first have to 
     determine whether the CAA authorizes EPA to designate 
     nonattainment areas where attainment cannot be achieved 
     without international action. Also, as noted above, before 
     examining whether CO2 meets section 108 criteria, 
     EPA would have to resolve the basic conceptual issue of 
     whether setting a NAAQS for CO2 is possible 
     without putting the entire country either in attainment or 
     out of attainment. Since EPA has not resolved these threshold 
     questions, it is disingenuous to claim that section 108 is 
     ``potentially applicable'' to CO2. The most EPA 
     can honestly say at this point is that it does not know 
     whether section 108 could be found to be applicable to 
     CO2.
       In Q11, noting that unilateral CO2 emissions 
     reductions by the United States would have no measurable 
     effect on global climate change, we asked whether the NAAQS 
     program can have any application to CO2 outside 
     the context of an international regulatory regime, such as 
     the Kyoto Protocol, since CAA section 109(b) requires the 
     Administrator to adopt NAAQS that are ``requisite to 
     protect'' public health and welfare. You replied; ``The Clean 
     Air Act does not dictate that EPA must be able to address all 
     sources of a particular air pollution problem before it may 
     address any of those sources. Rather, EPA may address some 
     sources that `contribute' to a problem even if it cannot 
     address all of the contributors. For example, EPA was not 
     precluded from addressing airborne lead emissions because 
     there are other sources of lead contamination, some of which 
     may be beyond EPA's jurisdiction. See Lead Industries Ass'n 
     v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1136 (DC Cir. 1980).'' We agree that 
     EPA may address some sources that contribute to a problem 
     even if it cannot address all of the contributors. However, 
     there is a fundamental difference between lead pollution and 
     CO2 ``pollution.''
       As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals observed in the Lead 
     Industries case, airborne lead is one of three major routes 
     of exposure, the others being diet and accidental ingestion 
     of lead objects by small children. Accordingly, setting a 
     NAAQS for lead cannot provide comprehensive protection 
     against lead pollution. However, setting a NAAQS for lead can 
     significantly reduce exposure to airborne lead. Moreover, 
     reducing airborne lead would also reduce the amount of lead 
     in the nation's food supply--another major route of exposure. 
     Therefore, it is possible to set a NAAQS for lead that is 
     ``requisite'' to protect public health. In contrast, setting 
     a NAAQS for CO2 outside the context of a global 
     treaty cannot significantly reduce (or even measurably slow 
     the growth of) atmospheric concentrations of CO2, 
     particularly since China alone will soon overtake the U.S. as 
     a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it is hard to 
     imagine that a NAAQS for only one gas--CO2--that 
     applies only to the U.S. could satisfy the section 109(b) 
     requirement that it be ``requisite'' to protect public health 
     and welfare.
       In Q12, we asked which provisions of the CAA apply to 
     ``major stationary sources'' and ``major emitting 
     facilities,'' and whether such provisions are among those EPA 
     considers ``potentially applicable'' to CO2. You 
     explained that the regulatory requirements of Parts C and D 
     of Title I and Title V of the CAA apply to major stationary 
     sources and major emitting facilities. You also noted that, 
     to be a major stationary source or major emitting facility, 
     an entity must emit an air pollutant that EPA regulates 
     ``pursuant to other provisions of the CAA (e.g., if it were a 
     criteria pollutant under section 108).'' As you know, section 
     302(j) defines ``major stationary source'' and ``major 
     emitting facility'' as any stationary facility or source that 
     emits, or has the potential to emit, ``one hundred tons per 
     year or more of any air pollutant.'' it is our understanding 
     that several hundred thousand small and mid-sized businesses 
     and farms individually emit 100 tons or more of 
     CO2 per year. Regulating CO2, 
     therefore, would dramatically expand EPA's control over the 
     U.S. economy generally and the small business sector in 
     particular. We are concerned that EPA has an enormous 
     organizational interest in laying the legal predicate for 
     future regulation of CO2.
       In Q13, we challenged EPA's reading of the Knollenberg 
     funding limitation. We noted that there is no clear practical 
     difference between issuing regulations for the purpose of 
     reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which EPA claims is legal, 
     and issuing regulations ``for the purpose of implementing . . 
     . the Kyoto Protocol,'' which EPA acknowledges is illegal. 
     Rather than speak to the substance of our concern, you refer 
     to previous letters which, in our judgment, also sidestep 
     that concern. We believe that EPA has once again failed to 
     elucidate any criteria that would enable Congress, or other 
     outside observers, to distinguish between legal and illegal 
     greenhouse gas-reducing regulations under the Knollenberg 
     limitation.
       In your response to Q13, you also took issue with our 
     understanding of the conditions on which the Senate agreed to 
     ratify the Rio Treaty. We asked: ``[Would it not have been 
     pointless for the Senate to have insisted, in ratifying the 
     Rio Treaty, that the Administration not commit the U.S. to 
     binding emission reductions without the further advice and 
     consent of the Senate, if it were already in EPA's power to 
     impose such reductions under existing authority?'' You 
     replied: ``[T]he Senate insisted that the Executive Branch 
     not commit the U.S. to a binding international legal 
     obligation (i.e., a treaty obligation) without further advice 
     and consent. The Senate's statement on this point has no 
     bearing on the scope of existing domestic legal authority to 
     address pollution problems as a matter of domestic policy, 
     independent of any international legal obligations.'' We 
     agree in part, and disagree in part. We agree that the 
     Senate's statement referred to international obligations. 
     Nonetheless, that statement does have a bearing on the. scope 
     of EPA's authority.
       A major reason for the Senate's instruction was the concern 
     that the Administration might commit to an international 
     agreement that imposes costly burdens on the U.S. and a few 
     other countries while exempting most nations, including major 
     U.S. trade competitors like China, Mexico, and Brazil, from 
     binding emission limitations. Acting on this same concern, 
     the Senate in July 1997 passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. 
     Res. 98) by a vote of 95-0. Byrd-Hagel stated, among other 
     things, that the U.S. should not be a signatory to any 
     climate change agreement or protocol that would exempt 
     developing nations from binding emissions limits.
       Now, if the Senate is overwhelmingly opposed to a climate 
     change treaty that would

[[Page 11732]]

     exempt three-quarters of the globe from binding obligations 
     (even though they emit significant greenhouse gases), it is 
     unthinkable that Congress would support a unilateral 
     emissions reduction regime binding upon the U.S. alone. 
     Simply put, when the Senate ratified the Rio Treaty, it did 
     so with the understanding that the Executive Branch would not 
     attempt via administrative action, executive agreement, or 
     rulemaking to go beyond the Treaty's voluntary goals.
       In Q14, we asked you to account for the fact that, although 
     the Administration claims to regard the science supporting 
     the Kyoto Protocol as ``clear and compelling,'' EPA 
     apparently does not believe the science is strong enough to 
     commence a ``formal scientific review process'' to determine 
     the appropriateness of domestic regulatory action. Rather 
     than explain how such seemingly inconsistent positions 
     cohere, EPA simply asserts without explanation that there is 
     no incongruity or contradiction.
       In summary, with EPA's answers in hand, we are more 
     convinced than ever that the CAA does not authorize EPA to 
     regulate CO2. As we have stated in previous 
     letters, it is' inconceivable that Congress would delegate to 
     EPA the power to launch a CO2 emissions control 
     program--arguably the most expansive and expensive regulatory 
     program in history--without ever once saying so in the text 
     of the statute. We also think it is obvious that the basic 
     structure of the NAAQS program, with its designation of local 
     attainment and nonattainment areas and its call for State 
     implementation plans, has no application to a global 
     phenomenon like the greenhouse effect. Furthermore, in view 
     of the well-known fact that CO2 is a benign 
     substance and the foundation of the planetary food chain, we 
     are appalled by the Administration's insistence that EPA 
     might be able to regulate CO2 as a ``toxic'' or 
     ``hazardous'' air pollutant.
       The CAA is not a regulatory blank check. The 
     Administration's claim that the CAA authorizes regulation of 
     greenhouse gas emissions can only serve to undermine 
     Congressional and public support for legitimate EPA 
     endeavors.
           Sincerely,
     David M. McIntosh.
     Ken Calvert.
                                  ____


                      CO2: A POLLUTANT?

       The Legal Affairs Committee Report to the National Mining 
     Association Board of Directors on The Authority of EPA to 
     Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act.

        (Fredrick D. Palmer, Chairman, Legal Affairs Committee)

   (Peter Glaser, Barbara Van Zomeren, Doherty, Rumble & Butler, PA)

 (Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Sr. Vice President & General Counsel, Bradford 
   V. Frisby Assistant General Counsel, National Mining Association)


                                preface

       Fear of apocalyptic global warming centers on an increasing 
     atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) 
     due to human activity. The United Nations' voluntary 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) seeks 
     to prevent ``dangerous human interference'' with climate. A 
     successor treaty negotiated at the meeting in Kyoto, Japan in 
     December 1997 (the Kyoto Protocol) would place the 
     responsibility on developed nations to substantially cut 
     their greenhouse gas emissions. What is really at issue in 
     this debate is human reliance on carbon fuels as our primary 
     source of energy.
       Of course, the economic consequences are enormous for those 
     countries who truly pursue the commitments established in 
     Kyoto. The reduction of greenhouse gases means substantial 
     constraints on economic prosperity--including, perhaps, 
     reducing income, employment and output. These dire economic 
     realities no doubt explain the administration's reluctance to 
     inform the American people of the sacrifices they would be 
     called upon to make in order to fulfill the commitments made 
     by U.S. negotiators in Kyoto. No less daunting is the task of 
     explaining to Americans why they must accept such wrenching 
     changes to their well-being when the evidence does not show 
     that the increase in CO2 levels attributed to 
     human activity is responsible for a measured rise in global 
     temperature, or, for that matter, that a warmer climate, if 
     it did occur, poses the threat of an environmental 
     catastrophe.
       These realities pose substantial obstacles to both public 
     and political acceptance of the Kyoto commitments. Notably, 
     the administration has not submitted the Protocol to the 
     Senate for ratification and, apparently, it has no plans to 
     do so any time soon. Yet, the absence of this constitutional 
     prerequisite to implementation has not deterred others in the 
     administration from suggesting the (ab)use of administrative 
     powers in order to secure the greenhouse gas emission cuts 
     they agreed to in Kyoto.
       Perhaps the most stunning suggestion in this regard is the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) claim that it 
     currently possesses authority to sregulate CO2 as 
     a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The characterization of 
     CO2 as a pollutant is, in a word, remarkable. 
     After all, this benign gas is a limiting nutrient required 
     for life on earth. To be sure, EPA's characterization of 
     CO2 as a pollutant and claim of regulatory powers 
     over it are not the mere musings of a few wishful bureaucrats 
     at the agency. The Administrator of EPA herself endorsed this 
     view in congressional testimony on March 11, 1998. When 
     pressed by members of Congress on the legal basis for this 
     claim, the Administrator agreed to provide a legal opinion. A 
     month later, EPA's general counsel supplied one that attempts 
     to support the Administrator's claim.
       The sweeping claim of regulatory powers over such a 
     pervasive, yet benign, substance as CO2 presents 
     the prospect of unparalleled bureaucratic, legal and economic 
     burdens imposed on the entire heart of the American economy--
     more than one million businesses of all sizes in most 
     sectors. In view of the grave consequences posed by EPA's 
     expansive claim of administrative powers, the National Mining 
     Association's Board of Directors requested its Legal Affairs 
     Committee to evaluate EPA's authority to regulate in this 
     area. What follows is the Committee's report and analysis 
     which concludes that, contrary to EPA's claim, the agency 
     lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon 
     dioxide emissions.
       One need not be an expert on the Clean Air Act or, for that 
     matter, a lawyer to comprehend the reasoning for this 
     conclusion. Simply recall the bedrock principle upon which 
     our system of government rests: the legislative branch makes 
     the laws and the executive branch executes them. The 
     corollary principle is, of course, that an agency's 
     administrative powers are limited to the authority delegated 
     by Congress. The analysis that follows probes this 
     fundamental question.
       The natural tendency of administrative agencies to swell 
     their mission beyond the will of Congress as expressed in the 
     law is, unfortunately, a product of our modern regulatory 
     state. On occasion, this tendency is also accompanied by a 
     callous disregard for the most basic of principles that 
     undergird our system of government, as was the case not long 
     ago when the White House challenged ``Congress [to] amend the 
     Clean Water Act to make it consistent with the agencies' 
     rulemaking.'' See National Mining Association v. U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers, 145 F. 3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998). If 
     nothing else, this viewpoint should inform us that if we are 
     to assure fidelity to the basic principles of our system of 
     government, we must embrace the wisdom offered in Thomas 
     Jefferson's suggestion that the price of liberty is eternal 
     vigilance, and always follow Abraham Lincoln's recognition 
     that the U.S. Executive Branch, under the Constitution, lacks 
     the authority to ``make permanent rules of property by 
     proclamation.''


                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       Soon after the negotiators returned from Kyoto last 
     December with a protocol that mandates sharp reductions in 
     greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other 
     developed nations, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) informed Congress that the agency 
     already possessed authority to begin meeting the targets for 
     emission cuts. Specifically, the Administrator claimed that 
     carbon dioxide (CO2) could be characterized as a 
     pollutant and regulated by EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act 
     (CAA). At the request of the National Mining Association's 
     Board of Directors, its Legal Affairs Committee evaluated 
     this claim. After a comprehensive review of the language and 
     structure of the CAA, its legislative history and other 
     related laws, the analysis concludes that, contrary to EPA's 
     claim, Congress did not provide EPA with such authority. 
     Instead, Congress deliberately limited EPA's endeavors in 
     this area to non-regulatory activities.
       NMA's legal analysis probes the fundamental question of 
     whether Congress intended to delegate to EPA the power to 
     regulate CO2 emissions. The analysis first 
     demonstrates that the plain text of the statute fails to 
     delegate such authority to EPA. Second, it examines each of 
     the sections of the CAA cited by EPA in its legal opinion, 
     and shows that EPA's attempt to regulate CO2 is 
     inconsistent with those very sections of the CAA. Third, the 
     legislative history of the CAA is examined and shown to 
     contradict EPA's position. Fourth, the analysis explains that 
     other statutes and treaties support the inevitable conclusion 
     that Congress did not want EPA to regulate CO2 
     without additional legislation. Finally, the analysis 
     cautions that even if Congress decided to authorize EPA to 
     regulate CO2 under the CAA, the agency would have 
     great difficulty sustaining its burden of showing that 
     CO2 emissions endanger the public health and 
     welfare.
       There is no disputing the fact that the CAA does not 
     explicitly state that EPA may regulate CO2. 
     Despite the longstanding debate about global warming, not one 
     of the sections cited by EPA (or any other section) provides 
     that the agency may regulate CO2. In fact, the 
     only sections of the CAA that even mention global warming or 
     CO2 emphasize that such emissions should be the 
     subject of study, but not regulation.
       The agency's legal opinion cites several provisions of the 
     CAA (Sec. Sec. 108-112, 115, 202(a) and 211(c)) that it 
     contends are ``potentially applicable'' to confer EPA 
     jurisdiction over CO2. Even though the most direct 
     evidence shows that Congress did not intend that EPA

[[Page 11733]]

     regulate CO2, the agency hangs its tenuous claim 
     on general language contained in the CAA. Such language, of 
     course, cannot defeat the specific intent of Congress on the 
     question of whether Congress intended for EPA to regulate 
     CO2 emissions. But, even if the statute were not 
     clear that EPA cannot regulate CO2, the regulatory 
     structure of the sections cited by EPA are completely 
     inconsistent with the regulation of a substance like 
     CO2 and therefore also compel a conclusion that 
     EPA may not regulate CO2.
       One example of the general language in the CAA cited by EPA 
     are the sections on criteria pollutants (Sec. Sec. 108-109). 
     Under these sections, EPA is authorized to establish National 
     Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'') to control 
     national, statewide, and local pollution. However, these 
     provisions, which are aimed at pollution that affects air 
     quality locally or regionally, cannot even theoretically 
     address the CO2 concentrations that purportedly 
     implicate an atmospheric phenomena of climate change on a 
     global scale. Since Congress does not delegate regulatory 
     authority to an agency to impose restrictions that are 
     somehow calculated to serve an unattainable goal, Congress 
     did not intend for EPA to regulate CO2 using these 
     sections of the law. Other examples abound, and the analysis 
     discusses why the regulation of CO2 does not fit 
     within the regulatory scheme established by Congress. The 
     extreme difficulty that EPA has in trying to force 
     CO2 into a regulatory scheme that does not fit 
     provides further evidence that Congress never intended 
     CO2 to be regulated under what EPA says are 
     ``potentially applicable'' sections of the CAA.
       The legislative history of the CAA confirms NMA's 
     conclusions. The CAA did not refer to CO2 until 
     the 1990 amendments were passed. in those amendments, 
     Congress specifically debated and ultimately rejected 
     proposals to allow EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. 
     Instead, Congress authorized EPA only to study certain 
     greenhouse gases, not regulate them. By specifically 
     considering this issue and resolving it against regulation, 
     Congress clearly withheld from EPA any powers to regulate 
     CO2.
       In determining the meaning of a statute, one may also 
     consider related statutes on the same subject. Such related 
     legislation can provide corroborating evidence of 
     congressional intent. Such is the case here, since several 
     laws and treaties support the conclusion that Congress did 
     not delegate authority to regulate CO2 to EPA. 
     These include the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Rio Treaty, 
     the National Climate Program Act, the Global Change Research 
     Act, and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1990. These laws 
     have consistently rejected proposed measures to mandate 
     restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and instead 
     directed the executive branch agencies to study the matter 
     and report back to Congress. Likewise, treaties have been 
     consistently negotiated with the understanding that any 
     binding emissions reduction targets would require 
     Congressional approval.
       EPA's claim has one further flaw. Even if Congress left to 
     EPA's discretion the decision of whether to regulate 
     CO2 under the CAA, EPA would still be required to 
     prove that CO2 emissions cause harmful effects to 
     the public health, welfare or the environment. Given the 
     complexities and uncertainties over global warming, and the 
     serious flaws in some of the fundamental evidence relied upon 
     by global warming advocates, it is doubtful that EPA could 
     support such a finding. A separate technical report that was 
     prepared in conjunction with this legal analysis demonstrates 
     that the available evidence does not support EPA's implicit 
     assumption that increased levels of CO2 would be 
     detrimental to the public health and welfare.
       In sum, the language of the CAA, its structure, its 
     legislative history, and other related statutes all lead to 
     the same conclusion: Congress has not delegated authority 
     under the Clean Air Act for EPA to regulate carbon dioxide 
     emissions.


                              INTRODUCTION

       Carbon dioxide is a clear, odorless gas that appears 
     naturally in the earth's atmosphere and is a fundamental 
     component of life on earth. All animals (including human 
     beings) inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants 
     take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a part of 
     photosynthesis and return oxygen to the atmosphere as a 
     byproduct of the same process.
       Carbon dioxide is also a naturally occurring ``greenhouse 
     gas.'' The earth has a natural ``greenhouse effect'' in which 
     heat from the sun is trapped below'the earth''s atmosphere 
     and is partially prevented from re-radiating back into space. 
     The greenhouse gases that cause this effect appear in trace 
     amounts in the atmosphere and include water vapor (by far the 
     most significant greenhouse gas), carbon dioxide, methane, 
     nitrous oxides and stratospheric ozone. Without the naturally 
     occurring greenhouse effect, the earth's climate would be far 
     too cold to sustain life as we know it.
       It is known that since the industrial revolution, carbon 
     dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing as a 
     result of human activities (principally the combustion of 
     fossil fuels for transportation, electric generation, 
     residential and commercial heating and a variety of other 
     processes, as well as deforestation). Presently, atmospheric 
     levels of carbon dioxide are estimated to be approximately 
     25% higher than in pre-industrial times.
       Some scientists believe that the increased levels of carbon 
     dioxide in the atmosphere are enhancing the natural 
     greenhouse effect to the extent that the world is facing a 
     climatological Armageddon. These scientists believe that 
     increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause 
     unprecedented warming of the Earth resulting in a variety of 
     climatological disasters running the gamut from more storms 
     and flooding to more drought and desertification.
       The alarm set off by the predictions of these scientists 
     resulted in the United States entering into the 1992 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change, the so-called Rio 
     Treaty. The United States and other developed nations agreed 
     in the Rio Treaty to take voluntary action in an attempt to 
     reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 
     2000.
       Despite a variety of efforts by government and industry, 
     the Clinton Administration's Climate Change Action Plan has 
     not succeeded in reducing United States carbon dioxide 
     emissions. There is now virtually no possibility that the Rio 
     target will be met. Other countries similarly will fail to 
     meet that target.
       The Clinton Administration, nevertheless, wants to commit 
     the United States and other developed countries to even more 
     stringent emissions reductions than set forth in the Rio 
     Treaty. In December of last year, the Administration entered 
     into the Kyoto Protocol, which would require the country to 
     meet binding targets and timetables for reducing carbon 
     dioxide emissions significantly below 1990 levels before the 
     end of the next decade.
       As a treaty of the United States, the Kyoto Protocol cannot 
     become legally binding on this country until ratified by a 
     two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate Prior to Kyoto, the 
     Senate, by a 95-0 margin, adopted the Byrd-Hagel resolution 
     in which the Senate expressed that it would not ratify any 
     protocol that did not require substantive Third World 
     participation and which would damage the U.S. economy. By the 
     Administration's own admission, the Kyoto Protocol fails to 
     achieve the first condition (and by any reasonable analysis 
     fails to achieve the second condition as well). The 
     Administration has not yet submitted the treaty to the Senate 
     for its consent and states that it will not do so until there 
     are meaningful commitments by Third World countries to reduce 
     their carbon dioxide emissions.
       The Administration has pledged that it will not implement 
     the Kyoto Protocol unless it is ratified by the Senate. 
     Nevertheless, in testimony before Congress, the Administrator 
     of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took the 
     position that, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified, 
     the agency currently possesses authority under the Clean Air 
     Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Several weeks 
     later, EPA produced a legal opinion by its then General 
     Counsel, Jonathan Z. Cannon, to support EPA's claim of 
     expansive authority in this regard.
       The National Mining Association (NMA) Board of Directors 
     asked its Legal Affairs Committee to evaluate whether EPA has 
     the authority it now asserts. This legal analysis presents 
     our report. We conclude that EPA does not have authority 
     under the CAA to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide.
       Our analysis begins with the fundamental inquiry of whether 
     Congress intended to delegate to EPA the power to regulate 
     carbon dioxide emissions. It is, of course, axiomatic that an 
     agency's administrative powers are limited to the authority 
     delegated by Congress. In order to ascertain congressional 
     intent we employ the traditional tools of statutory 
     construction including the language and structure of the 
     statute as a whole, its legislative history, the history 
     associated with congressional activities in this area, and, 
     to some extent, other relevant statutes. This approach to 
     discerning congressional intent is not only well-accepted, it 
     is particularly appropriate where, as here, an agency takes 
     an expansive view of the scope of its delegated authority.
       The EPA general counsel claims that the scope of the 
     agency's CAA regulatory powers extends to any substance that 
     is an ``air pollutant'' which the Administrator determines 
     endangers public health, welfare or the environment. 
     According to the general counsel, carbon dioxide emissions 
     fall within the general statutory definition of ``air 
     pollutant.'' We need not debate this conclusion now since, as 
     even the general counsel acknowledges, the inquiry does not 
     end with the definition of ``air pollutant.'' A substance 
     that may literally fall within the definition of ``air 
     pollutant'' may not be regulated unless it also meets the 
     standards for regulation under specific statutory criteria. 
     Satisfaction of this threshold requirement includes not only 
     a determination that a substance, here carbon dioxide, may 
     cause adverse public health, welfare or environmental 
     effects, but also that the statutory provision, or scheme, 
     provides an appropriate and effective means for its 
     regulation. The general counsel merely assumes that the 
     former determination can be made, and wholly avoids

[[Page 11734]]

     evaluation of the latter consideration. Moreover, the general 
     counsel's analysis is devoid of any consideration of 
     congressional activity on this subject in the context of both 
     the CAA and other relevant statutes that evince Congress' 
     intent to withhold authority from EPA to regulate carbon 
     dioxide emissions. In short, the general counsel's analysis 
     is less than complete and, as a consequence, his conclusion 
     that carbon dioxide emissions are within the scope of EPA's 
     authority to regulate lacks substantive foundation.
       It is our conclusion, grounded on what we believe is a more 
     comprehensive approach to statutory construction, that the 
     CAA does not provide EPA with authority to regulate carbon 
     dioxide emissions. As discussed in more detail below:
       1. The language of the CAA demonstrates the absence of 
     agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide;
       2. The regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant does not 
     fit within the regulatory scheme created by Congress;
       3. The legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990 
     confirms that EPA does not have authority to mandate 
     restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions; and
       4. Other Congressional enactments regarding potential 
     global climate change demonstrate Congress' intent not to 
     regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
       In addition, we do not believe that the available evidence 
     would support a finding that carbon dioxide emissions 
     endanger the public health or welfare or the environment. The 
     Greening Earth Society has released an October 12, 1998 
     report entitled ``In Defense of Carbon Dioxide: A 
     Comprehensive Review of Carbon Dioxide's Effects on Human 
     Health, Welfare and the Environment,'' prepared by the firm 
     of New Hope Environmental Services, to accompany this legal 
     analysis. The Greening Earth Society report rebuts the claim 
     that increased levels of carbon dioxide are leading to a 
     climatological disaster. Our legal analysis herein does not 
     depend on the results of this technical report. Whether or 
     not carbon dioxide emissions present a danger to the public 
     health, welfare or the environment, EPA does not have 
     authority to regulate that substance. Nevertheless, as shown 
     in the Greening Earth Society report, there is no basis to 
     conclude that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging the 
     environment and every basis to conclude that such emissions 
     are benefiting the environment.


                                ANALYSIS

     I. THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT DEMONSTRATES THE ABSENCE 
         OF AGENCY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE
       We begin our analysis with an examination of the statutory 
     language. A proper examination of the statutory text includes 
     not only the language itself but the context of the language 
     as it appears in the overall regulatory scheme created by 
     Congress. Toward this end, a review of the detailed 
     regulatory provisions of the CAA reveals that none of them 
     mention carbon dioxide emissions or global warming. When 
     Congress did speak directly to the issue, it did so solely in 
     the context of non-regulatory activities such as research and 
     technology programs. Accordingly, the text and structure of 
     the CAA reveals Congress' deliberate choice to confine EPA's 
     CAA endeavors on carbon dioxide to non-regulatory activities.
       As part of our examination of the language and structure of 
     the CAA, it is useful to refer to the historic context of 
     both the debate surrounding global warming and congressional 
     activities in this area. The theory that emissions of carbon 
     dioxide and other greenhouse gases could possibly lead to a 
     dangerous global warming has been under consideration in 
     Congress since the late 1970's. During that period, 
     proponents of greenhouse gas regulation have informed 
     Congress on numerous occasions of the environmental 
     catastrophe which, in their view, could result if no such 
     regulation is undertaken. Indeed, EPA has taken the view that 
     global climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions 
     is the number one environmental issue facing the world today.
       Of course, significant restrictions on emissions of carbon 
     dioxide could have devastating consequences for our society. 
     Carbon dioxide is the inevitable result of the combustion of 
     fossil fuels, and the combustion of fossil fuels is far and 
     away the most important source of energy for modern 
     civilization. Because there is no even remotely feasible way 
     of preventing carbon dioxide emissions when fossil fuels are 
     combusted, carbon dioxide regulation means potentially severe 
     reductions in the use of fossil fuels and far-reaching 
     changes in the way society uses energy.
       In view of this longstanding debate on the potential for 
     global warming from greenhouse gas emissions, one would 
     expect that any congressional authorization to address this 
     concern through the CAA regulatory scheme would be plainly 
     expressed in the language of the statute. Congress is not in 
     the habit of granting far-reaching authority to 
     administrative agencies sub silentio. Yet nowhere in the CAA 
     is there an explicit authorization for EPA to regulate carbon 
     dioxide. Congressional silence on a matter of such 
     significance is not unlike the ``watchdog [that] did not bark 
     in the night.''
       Our conclusion that the language of the CAA does not 
     support EPA's claim of authority to regulate carbon dioxide 
     need not rest upon congressional silence alone. The text of 
     the statute demonstrates Congress' deliberate choice to limit 
     EPA's endeavors on carbon dioxide to non-regulatory 
     activities.
       The CAA expressly provides authority to regulate numerous 
     substances specifically referenced in the statute. For 
     example, Sections 108 and 109 authorize EPA to regulate so-
     called ``criteria pollutants,'' which are explicitly listed 
     and placed in the context of a specific scheme for their 
     regulation. Section 112 directs EPA to designate and regulate 
     hazardous air pollutants (``HAPs''), and lists no less than 
     190 specific such pollutants Congress determined are the most 
     important to regulate. Similarly, Title VI of the CAA 
     authorizes EPA to list and regulate substances which deplete 
     the stratospheric ozone layer, and designates 53 substances 
     to be so regulated. But neither global warming generally, nor 
     carbon dioxide specifically, are mentioned anywhere in this 
     prolific regulatory scheme developed by Congress.
       To be sure, the CAA does contain references to carbon 
     dioxide and global warming. However, the context in which 
     these terms appear within the statutory scheme provides 
     powerful guidance on congressional intent. The statute 
     mentions carbon dioxide and global warming solely in the 
     context of provisions that authorize their study, monitoring 
     and evaluation of non-regulatory strategies. For example, CAA 
     Section 103(g) lists carbon dioxide as one of several items 
     to be considered in EPA's conduct of a ``basic engineering 
     research and technology program to develop, evaluate and 
     demonstrate nonregulatory strategies and technologies.'' 
     Global warming is mentioned in CAA Section 602(e) which 
     directs EPA to examine the global warming potential of 
     certain listed substances that contribute to stratospheric 
     ozone depletion. However, this provision--the only one in the 
     statute that mentions global warming--is accompanied by an 
     express admonishment that it ``shall not be construed to be 
     the basis of any additional regulation under [the CAA].''
       This examination of the statutory language in its context 
     within the overall scheme of the CAA provides a more complete 
     analysis than the EPA's general counsel's mechanistic 
     approach whereby the agency simply bootstraps itself into 
     carbon dioxide regulation through a broadly worded definition 
     of ``air pollutant.'' To accept the analysis, proffered by 
     EPA's general counsel is to presume a delegation of power 
     merely by the absence of an express withholding of such 
     power--a view plainly out of step with the principles of 
     administrative law. The fundamental principles of statutory 
     construction do not permit one to read into the CAA's 
     detailed regulatory provisions greenhouse gases such as 
     carbon dioxide that Congress deliberately left out. 
     Congressional silence on carbon dioxide in this part of the 
     CAA is audible. The intentions of Congress by such silence in 
     the CAA's regulatory scheme become unmistakable with its 
     deliberate choice to address global warming and carbon 
     dioxide solely in the non-regulatory provisions of the 
     statute.
       This approach to evaluating the language within the overall 
     statutory scheme leads us to conclude that, with respect to 
     carbon dioxide, Congress has indicated that EPA's authority 
     stops at the point of non-regulatory activities. Any claim 
     that EPA currently possesses authority to regulate carbon 
     dioxide emissions would extend the CAA beyond the scope 
     intended by Congress.
     II. THE REGULATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AS A POLLUTANT DOES NOT 
         FIT WITHIN THE REGULATORY SCHEME CREATED BY CONGRESS.
       A. Introduction
       The EPA general counsel identifies several CAA regulatory 
     provisions that are, in his words, ``potentially applicable'' 
     to carbon dioxide emissions. Without any meaningful analysis, 
     the opinion simply concludes that the specific criteria for 
     regulation under these provisions could be met if the 
     Administrator determines that carbon dioxide can be 
     reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse 
     effects on public health, welfare or the environment.
       For the moment, we leave aside the question of whether the 
     Administrator would be able to make the health, welfare or 
     environmental effects determination the general counsel poses 
     as singularly important, because his analysis is incomplete. 
     For the purposes of this step of our analysis, our 
     examination of those ``potentially applicable'' provisions 
     discloses that they do not provide appropriate tools for the 
     regulation of carbon dioxide emissions' purported effects on 
     global warming. The fact that the regulation of carbon 
     dioxide as a pollutant does not fit into the regulatory 
     scheme established in the statute confirms the conclusion 
     that its regulation by EPA under the CAA is not intended by 
     Congress.
       B. There is No Authority in the CAA to Regulate Carbon 
           Dioxide as a Criteria Pollutant.
       1. EPA's Authority to Designate Substances as Criteria 
     Pollutants.--The EPA general counsel states that one 
     potential source of EPA authority to regulate carbon

[[Page 11735]]

     dioxide emissions is CAA Sections 108, 109 and 110. These 
     sections provide authority to EPA to establish, implement and 
     enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
     what are known as ``criteria pollutants.'' Under CAA Section 
     108(a)(1), criteria pollutants are those substances which, in 
     the judgment of the EPA Administrator, ``cause or contribute 
     to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
     endanger public health or welfare'' and which are produced by 
     ``numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.''
       Once a substance is identified as a criteria pollutant, the 
     Administrator is required under CAA Section 109 to publish 
     primary and secondary NAAQS for each such substance. Primary 
     NAAQS are ``ambient air quality standards the attainment and 
     maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, 
     based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of 
     safety, are requisite to protect the public health.'' 
     Secondary NAAQS are standards ``requisite to protect the 
     public welfare.''
       Once NAAQS are established, a complex regulatory structure 
     is triggered that mandates reductions of criteria pollutants 
     in the ambient air to levels which protect the public health 
     and welfare as set forth in the applicable NAAQS. Under CAA 
     Section 107(d)(1)(B), within a defined period EPA is required 
     to designate nonattainment, attainment and unclassifiable 
     areas. Under CAA Section 110(a)(1), within three years after 
     promulgation of a NAAQS, every state must ``adopt and submit 
     to the Administrator'' a state implementation plan, or 
     ``SIP,'' ``which provides for implementation, maintenance, 
     and enforcement'' of the primary and secondary NAAQS. CAA 
     Section 110(a)(2) provides a long list of SIP requirements 
     designed to ensure that states will achieve the air quality 
     required by the NAAQS. Similarly, CAA Section 172 provides 
     EPA with extensive authority to ensure that nonattainment 
     areas are brought into attainment ``as expeditiously as 
     practicable.''
       2. Congress Could Not Have Intended to Regulate Carbon 
     Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases as Criteria Pollutants 
     Because the Statutory Regime for Regulating Criteria 
     Pollutants is Wholly Unsuited to Preventing or Mitigating 
     Potential Global Climate Change.--The criteria pollutant 
     regulatory structure described in the foregoing section is 
     designed to apply to local air pollution in the sense that 
     ambient concentrations of the pollution will differ from 
     locality to locality, causing some localities to be 
     designated as attainment areas and others as nonattainment 
     areas. All of the substances which EPA has designated as 
     criteria pollutants meet this framework. Lead, sulfur oxides, 
     nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and 
     ozone concentrations in the air all present local air 
     pollution problems that have resulted in discrete portions of 
     the country being designated as nonattainment for each. Some 
     of the pollutants (principally ozone) are blown downwind, 
     causing EPA to seek to exercise authority in the CAA to 
     require modifications in SIPs to prevent ozone formation in 
     downwind states. But even ozone presents a local air 
     pollution problem in that ambient ozone concentrations differ 
     from locality to locality, resulting in the designation of 
     discrete ozone nonattainment areas.
       Emission controls implemented under the CAA criteria 
     pollutant regulatory structure described above are designed 
     to cure the specific cause of the local nonattainment 
     problem. States in their SIPs select those types of controls 
     ``as may be necessary'' to achieve attainment in designated 
     nonattainment areas, and these types of controls may differ 
     from state to state and from nonattainment area to 
     nonattainment area depending on the particular problem being 
     addressed.
       As a result of the criteria pollutant statutory structure, 
     ambient concentrations of each of the criteria pollutants 
     have been steadily reduced through the application primarily 
     of local controls but with upwind controls as well. Although 
     not all localities designated as nonattainment have been 
     brought into attainment, the criteria pollutant regulatory 
     structure has achieved significant progress in reducing 
     atmospheric concentrations of criteria pollutants and 
     nonattainment. More importantly, while industry and 
     environmental groups frequently have their disputes as to the 
     exact requirements of the criteria pollutant regulatory 
     structure, and the speed with which nonattainment can be 
     cured, the fact remains that such regulatory structure is 
     plainly designed to require local nonattainment areas to 
     achieve attainment.
       This statutory structure has no rational application 
     whatsoever to a substance such as carbon dioxide, which is 
     fundamentally different than any of the substances that EPA 
     regulates as a criteria pollutant. Although groundlevel and 
     lower atmospheric ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide 
     may differ slightly from locality to locality owing to 
     differing sources and sinks, the greenhouse effect results 
     from overall greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere 
     rather than at groundlevel. Tropospheric levels of carbon 
     dioxide over any particular locality are not influenced by 
     emissions of carbon dioxide locally or upwind. Carbon dioxide 
     mixes in the troposphere globally through the natural 
     processes of atmospheric circulation and air movement. Thus, 
     ambient tropospheric carbon dioxide levels in any one part of 
     the world are roughly the same as in any other part of the 
     world. As a result, one ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 
     Washington, D.C., has the same effect on ambient tropospheric 
     concentrations of carbon dioxide over Washington as a ton of 
     carbon dioxide emitted in Bangladesh.
       Moreover, carbon dioxide with anthropogenic (human) origins 
     compromise only a small part of the greenhouse gases 
     appearing in the atmosphere. In the first place, as stated, 
     carbon dioxide is by no means the only anthropogenically 
     emitted greenhouse gas. Other greenhouse gases emitted by man 
     include methane, nitrogen oxides and chlorofluorocarbons, 
     each of which has far greater heat trapping capacity per 
     molecule than carbon dioxide.
       Similarly, anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases 
     contribute only a minuscule amount of the greenhouse gases 
     occurring in the troposphere. Water vapor occurring naturally 
     in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas, contributing 
     about 98% of the greenhouse effect. Similarly, naturally 
     occurring sources of carbon dioxide far outweigh 
     anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide.
       The United States itself is a leading source worldwide of 
     anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, the United 
     States contributes only about 22% of all anthropogenic 
     emissions of greenhouse gases, and that number is projected 
     to decline dramatically as the Third World industrializes. 
     U.S. anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide thus are, and 
     will continue to be, only a tiny fraction of the total 
     sources--both anthropogenic and natural--of greenhouse gases 
     in the atmosphere.
       For these reasons, it is not even theoretically possible to 
     affect ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide in the 
     troposphere through a program of designating nonattainment 
     areas and requiring the submission of state-by-state SIPs. It 
     is not known what level of ambient concentration of carbon 
     dioxide that EPA might deem necessary to protect the public 
     health and welfare. If EPA were to set the level below 
     current concentrations (for instance, at preindustrial 
     levels), every square inch of the United States would 
     immediately become a non-attainment area, a result that would 
     be unprecedented in nearly three decades of CAA 
     administration. Every state would become responsible to 
     submit SIPs within three years containing emissions 
     restrictions ``as necessary to assure that'' the NAAQS for 
     carbon dioxide is Met. Yet there would be nothing a state 
     could do, individually or in concert with every other state, 
     that would be effective in reducing tropospheric carbon 
     dioxide concentrations.
       In sum, it is obvious that the statutory scheme established 
     by Congress for the regulation of criteria pollutants was 
     never intended, and cannot rationally be applied, to regulate 
     carbon dioxide emissions. Under elementary principles of 
     statutory construction, therefore, that statutory structure 
     cannot be interpreted as providing the regulatory authority 
     EPA claims. It is axiomatic, for instance, that Congress 
     should not be presumed to provide regulatory authority to an 
     agency ``to impose restrictions that [are] should one make a 
     ``fortress of the dictionary'' by accepting the literal 
     meaning of statutory language where such meaning is 
     contradicted by a statute's purposes and structure. Statutory 
     construction is a ``holistic endeavor'' that ``must include, 
     at a minimum, an examination of the statute's full text, its 
     structure, and the subject matter.''
       Based on these principles, it has been held that Congress 
     cannot have intended to create regulatory jurisdiction where 
     ``the operative provisions of the Act simply cannot 
     accommodate'' the object of the asserted regulatory 
     authority. And this principle applies even where an agency is 
     given a broad mandate to protect the public health and 
     welfare. As stated by the Supreme Court, ``[i]n our anxiety 
     to effectuate the congressional purpose of protecting the 
     public, we must take care not to extend the scope of the 
     statute beyond the point where Congress indicated it would 
     stop.''
       In the present case, the phrase ``endanger the public 
     health or welfare'' in CAA Section 108 must be read in 
     context of a criteria pollutant regulatory structure which, 
     as described, is intended to eliminate such endangerment 
     through a system of individual state implementation plans 
     aimed at eliminating local pockets of pollution. That 
     structure is wholly unsuited to the global warming issue and 
     cannot possibly eliminate the asserted danger of carbon 
     dioxide emissions. No conclusion is possible other than that 
     Congress does not intend to regulate carbon dioxide as a 
     criteria pollutant.
       C. EPA Does Not Have Authority to Regulate Emissions of 
           Carbon, Dioxide through the Imposition of Technology-
           Based Controls under CAA Section 111.
       1. EPA authority under Section 111.--The EPA General 
     Counsel opines that another potential source of authority to 
     regulate carbon dioxide emissions would be CAA Section 111. 
     CAA Section 111 provides EPA with authority to establish 
     ``new source performance standards,'' or ``NSPS,'' for 
     categories

[[Page 11736]]

     of sources which emit air pollutants. Unlike the NAAQS, NSPS 
     requirements are direct emissions limitations that any plant 
     to which such controls apply must meet as a condition of 
     operation. NSPS are sometimes referred to as technology-based 
     standards because they require installation of equipment that 
     limits emissions from emitting sources and are not directly 
     tied to the level of pollutants in the ambient air.
       Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(A), the Administrator shall 
     designate a category of sources as subject to NSPS 
     requirements if she finds that sources within such category 
     ``cause . . . or contribute . . . significantly to, air 
     pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger 
     public health or welfare.'' CAA Section 111(a)(1) defines 
     ``standard of performance'' as: ``a standard for emissions of 
     air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission 
     limitation achievable through the application of the best 
     system of emission reduction which (taking into account the 
     cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality 
     health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the 
     Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.''
       2. EPA Is Without Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide 
     Emissions under CM Section 111 Because There Are No 
     Adequately Demonstrated Systems of Emissions Reduction that 
     Would Limit Such Emissions from Stationary Sources.--Unlike 
     the NAAQS, NSPS standards cannot be set at whatever level the 
     Administrator determines is reasonably necessary to protect 
     human health and welfare. The NSPS limitation must be set at 
     a level that is ``achievable'' through ``the best system of 
     emission reduction which . . . has been adequately 
     demonstrated.''
       The case law related to EPA determinations under CAA 
     Section 111 has ``established a rigorous standard of review. 
     . . .'' While an achievable standard need not be one already 
     routinely achieved in the industry, any such standard ``must 
     be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which 
     can reasonably be expected to recur. . . .'' There must be 
     ``some assurance of the achievability of the standard for the 
     industry as a whole.'' ``An adequately demonstrated system is 
     one which has been shown to be reasonably reliable, 
     reasonably efficient, and which can reasonably be expected to 
     serve the interests of pollution control without being 
     exorbitantly costly in an economic or environmental way.''
       As explained by the courts, the degree to which an 
     adequately demonstrated system must be based on commercially 
     available technology depends on how soon the standards will 
     become effective. Because NSPS standards are generally 
     applied to new, as yet unconstructed sources, the NSPS 
     provision ``looks towards what may fairly be projected for 
     the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at 
     present, since it is addressed to standards for new plants--
     old stationary source pollution being controlled through 
     other regulatory authority'' (i.e., CAA Sections 108 and 
     109). Where standards are put into effect to ``control new 
     plants immediately, as opposed to one or two years in the 
     future, the latitude of projection is correspondingly 
     narrowed.'' Under this rationale, ``the latitude of 
     projection'' would be narrowed even more were EPA to attempt 
     to apply standards of performance to carbon dioxide emissions 
     from existing stationary sources under CAA Section 111(d).
       There are, however, no cost-effective systems of emissions 
     control, either commercially available at the present time or 
     even projected to be commercially available in the 
     foreseeable future, for controlling carbon dioxide emissions 
     from stationary sources that could conceivably meet the 
     standards of CAA Section 111. As a result, CAA Section 111 
     cannot be applied to control stationary sources of carbon 
     dioxide.
       D. EPA Does Not Have Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide 
           Emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutant.
       1. EPA Authority under CAA Section 112.--The EPA General 
     Counsel's opinion claims that EPA may have authority to 
     regulate carbon dioxide as a hazardous air pollutant, or 
     ``HAP,'' pursuant to CAA Section 112.\72\ Under CAA Section 
     112(b), the Administrator is required to compile a list of 
     HAPs, defined to include the 190 substances specifically 
     listed in such subsection as well as:
       ``. . . pollutants which present, or may present, through 
     inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse 
     human health effects (including but not limited to, 
     substances which are known to be, or may reasonably be 
     anticipated to be, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, 
     neurotoxic, which cause reproductive dysfunction, or which 
     are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse environmental 
     effects, whether through ambient concentrations, 
     bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise . . .''
       Under CAA Section 112(c), the Administrator is further 
     required to compile a list of categories of major sources and 
     area sources of HAPs. Under CAA Section 112(d), the 
     Administrator is required to promulgate regulations 
     establishing national emissions standards for HAPs (NESHAPs) 
     applicable to both new and existing sources. Such NESHAPs 
     must require the use of maximum available control technology 
     (MACT) in controlling sources of HAPs.
       2. Carbon Dioxide is not a HAP Subject to EPA Authority 
     under CAA Section 112.--The argument that carbon dioxide may 
     be regulated as a HAP borders on the frivolous. Each of the 
     190 substances listed as HAPs under CAA Section 112 is a 
     poison, producing toxic effects in small dosages. Carbon 
     dioxide, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a poison. 
     Moreover, if Congress had really intended that carbon dioxide 
     be regulated as a HAP, it would have been exceedingly strange 
     for it to have specifically named 190 of the presumably most 
     obvious and important HAPs in CAA Section 112 while omitting 
     carbon dioxide, which is by many orders of magnitude more 
     ubiquitous in the environment than any of the substances 
     expressly listed.
       In addition, the language of CAA Section 112 excludes 
     regulation of carbon dioxide because that substance does not 
     present either ``a threat of adverse human health effects'' 
     or adverse environmental effects'' within the meaning of the 
     section. With respect to health effects, the use of the 
     phrase ``through inhalation or other routes of exposure'' in 
     CAA Section 112(b) demonstrates that a substance may be a HAP 
     only if it causes health impacts through direct exposure. It 
     is the direct inhalation of the substance or other direct 
     exposure to it that must cause the health effect.
       The fact that health effects must be experienced from 
     direct exposure is shown by the examples of such effects 
     given in CAA Section 112(b): ``carcinogenic, mutagenic, 
     teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive 
     dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic.'' 
     Each of these is a health effect caused by direct exposure to 
     a hazardous substance, whether that exposure is inhalation, 
     ingestion or contact with the skin or sensory organs. It is 
     also borne out by the list of substances which Congress 
     predesignated as HAPs in CAA Section 112(b) each of which 
     causes a health effect through a direct exposure.
       Carbon dioxide in the amounts present and likely to be 
     present in the atmosphere in the future do not cause health 
     effects through inhalation or other direct exposure. The 
     health effect typically postulated to occur as a result of 
     global warming is the potential for an increase in tropical 
     diseases. Such effect (even if true) would be, at best, 
     highly indirect, caused by the reaction carbon dioxide and 
     other greenhouse gases have in the atmosphere, which might 
     warm the climate, which might make areas of the United States 
     conducive to insects carrying tropical diseases, which might 
     lead to an increase in such diseases. Such effect is 
     completely unlike the health effects referred to in CAA 
     Section 112.
       Similarly, the effect carbon dioxide is argued to have on 
     the environment is not caused by the direct interaction of 
     carbon dioxide and animal or plant life but the indirect 
     effect of carbon dioxide on the climate. The use of the terms 
     ``bioaccumulation'' and ``deposition'' to describe the causes 
     of environmental effects contemplated by CAA Section 112(b) 
     demonstrates that Congress did not intend to regulate through 
     CAA Section 112 effects not directly caused by the HAP 
     itself. And, again, the effect greenhouse gases are asserted 
     to have on the environment is nothing like the effect of the 
     various chemicals included on Congress' pre-designated list 
     of HAPs in Section 112(b), each of which causes a harm 
     through direct exposure.
       The legislative history of CAA Section 112 makes it 
     abundantly clear that carbon dioxide cannot be considered to 
     be a HAP. In distinguishing between the types of substances 
     that are HAPs and the types that are criteria pollutants, the 
     legislative history states that criteria pollutants are 
     ``more pervasive, but less potent, than hazardous air 
     pollutants.'' ``Hazardous air pollutants are pollutants that 
     pose serious health risks. . . . They may reasonably be 
     anticipated to cause cancer, neurological disorders, 
     reproductive dysfunctions, other chronic health effects, or 
     adverse acute human health effects.
       Similarly, ``adverse environmental effect'' is defined in 
     the legislative history as follows:
       ``Adverse environmental effects--The chemical is known to 
     cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because of: 
     (i) its toxicity, (ii) its toxicity and persistence in the 
     environment, or (iii) its toxicity and tendency to 
     bioaccumulate in the environment,'' a significant adverse 
     effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the 
     judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under 
     this section.
       As seen, carbon dioxide does not fit any of these 
     standards. It is not a HAP that can be regulated under CAA 
     Section 112.
       E. EPA Does Not Have Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide 
           Emissions under CAA Section 115.
       The EPA general counsel also suggests that EPA may regulate 
     carbon dioxide under CAA Section 115 regarding control of 
     international air pollution. CAA Section 115(a) provides:
       ``Whenever the Administrator, upon receipt of reports, 
     surveys, or studies from any duly constituted international 
     agency has reason to believe that any air pollutant or 
     pollutants emitted in the United States cause or contribute 
     to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
     endanger

[[Page 11737]]

     public health or welfare in a foreign country or whenever the 
     Secretary of State requests him to do so with respect to such 
     pollution which the Secretary of State alleges is of such a 
     nature, the Administrator shall give formal notification 
     thereof to the Governor of the State in which such emissions 
     originate.''
       Under CAA Section 115(b), the giving of notice to a 
     governor under CAA Section 115(a) constitutes a ``SIP call.'' 
     The applicable state is thereupon required to amend the 
     portion of its SIP ``as is inadequate to prevent or eliminate 
     the endangerment referred to in subsection (a) of this 
     section.''
       CAA Section 115 does not apply to carbon dioxide emissions 
     because the provision is self-evidently designed to apply 
     only to situations where wind bome pollution from the United 
     States is being deposited in a near-by country. It stretches 
     the provision beyond its intended scope to say that it 
     applies to a phenomenon such as the greenhouse effect, where 
     emissions anywhere on the globe contribute equally to 
     tropospheric levels of carbon dioxide that are roughly the 
     same anywhere else on the globe.
       The limited intent of CAA Section 115 is demonstrated by 
     its use of the ``SIP call'' mechanism as the means of 
     enforcing emissions reductions. As discussed above, it would 
     be entirely unprecedented to use the SIP process to mandate 
     emissions reductions from the entire country, particularly 
     where reductions even from the U.S. as a whole cannot solve 
     presumed global warming.
       The limited intent of CAA Section CAA 115 is also 
     demonstrated in subsection (c), entitled ``reciprocity,'' 
     which states that ``[t]his section shall apply only to a 
     foreign country which the Administrator determines has given 
     the U.S. essentially the same rights with respect to the 
     prevention or control of air pollution occurring in that 
     country as is given that country by this section.'' As can be 
     seen, this section provides that the U.S. will not restrict 
     emissions of pollutants causing injury to another country 
     unless that country reciprocates. Such section has no logical 
     application to the global warming phenomenon, where U.S. 
     emissions are presumably harming every other country in the 
     world. Such section could presumably be applied as to carbon 
     dioxide emissions only if every other country reciprocated. 
     That is a circumstance so unlikely to occur that it is 
     impossible to believe that Congress intended that CAA Section 
     115 would be applied to a phenomenon such as global warming.
       In any event, unless and until the Senate ratifies the 
     Kyoto Protocol (and unless and until the Protocol is adopted 
     by enough countries to enter into force), no country has 
     given the U.S. any ``rights'' with respect to the control of 
     carbon dioxide emissions within their borders. Even if the 
     Kyoto Protocol enters into effect, if the U.S. does not 
     become a party to it then the U.S. is not entitled to any 
     ``rights'' thereunder respecting foreign countries that have.
       In sum, CAA Section 115 cannot provide authority to 
     regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
     III. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CAA AMENDMENTS OF 1990 
         CONFIRMS THAT EPA DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO MANDATE 
         RESTRICTIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS.
       A. Introduction.
       The only provisions in the CAA that explicitly refer to 
     carbon dioxide or global climate change were enacted as a 
     part of the CAA Amendments of 1990. The legislative history 
     of the 1990 Amendments confirms that Congress never intended 
     to impose or authorize mandatory restrictions on carbon 
     dioxide emissions.
       During Congressional consideration of the 1990 Amendments 
     there was a sharp dispute between those who believed that the 
     time had come for the United States to impose mandatory 
     reductions on carbon dioxide emissions and those that did 
     not. The latter group prevailed. Congress specifically 
     rejected proposals to authorize EPA to regulate emissions of 
     carbon dioxide. The only carbon dioxide/global warming 
     provisions adopted were non-regulatory.
       As the Supreme Court has emphasized, ``[f]ew principles of 
     statutory construction are more compelling than the 
     proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to
     

                           *   *   *   *   *

     with what were argued to be the related issues of 
     stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change.'' 
     Title VII found that ``stratospheric ozone depletion and 
     global climate change from continued emissions of 
     chluroflurocarbons and other halogenated chlorine containing 
     halocarbons with ozone depleting potential, and emissions of 
     other gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, imperil 
     human health and the environment worldwide;'' and that 
     ``emissions of other gases, such as methane and carbon 
     dioxide, should be controlled.'' The legislation included as 
     goals not just protection of the ozone layer but prevention 
     of possible global warming as well:
       ``The objectives of this title are to restore and maintain 
     the chemical and physical integrity of the Earth's 
     atmosphere, to protect human health and the global 
     environment from all known and potential dangers due to 
     atmospheric or climatic modification, inciuding stratospheric 
     ozone depletion, to provide for a smooth transition from the 
     use of ozone depleting chemicals to the use of safe 
     chemicals, products, and technologies that do not threaten 
     the ozone layer, and to reduce the generation of greenhouse 
     gases in order to protect the Earth's ozone layer and to 
     limit anthropogenically induced global climate change . . .
       ``In order to achieve the objectives of this title, it is 
     the national goal to eliminate atmospheric emissions of 
     manufactured substances with ozone depleting potential as 
     well as direct and indirect global warming potential, 
     including chluroflurocarbons and other halogenated chlorine 
     or bromine containing halocarbons with ozone depleting and 
     global warming potential, to reduce to the maximum extent 
     possible emissions of other gases caused by human activities 
     that are likely to affect adversely the global climate and to 
     provide for an orderly shift to alternative, safe chemicals, 
     products, and technologies. (Emphasis supplied.)''
       In order to accomplish these goals, the Administrator would 
     be required to publish priority and secondary lists of all 
     manufactured substances ``which are known or may reasonably 
     be anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to 
     atmospheric or climatic modification, including stratospheric 
     ozone depletion.'' The Administrator would also be required 
     to promulgate regulations providing for the phase-out of 
     substances on the lists. The legislation as reported also 
     contained a modified version of the carbon dioxide tailpipe 
     standards originally contained in S. 1630 as introduced. 
     Consistent with these legislative requirements, the Senate 
     Committee Report on S. 1630 contains a great deal of 
     discussion on the need for the country to deal with the 
     ``[t]wo distinct but closely related global environmental 
     crises,'' that is, destruction of the ozone layer and 
     potential global warming.''
       The Senate adopted Title VII of S. 1630 as reported from 
     committee almost without change.
       C. House of Representatives Consideration.
       The House CAA Amendment bill was H.R. 3030, introduced by 
     Representative Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee to which the bill was referred. As 
     introduced and as reported from Committee, the bill contained 
     no terms dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion or global 
     warming.
       On the floor of the House, a comprehensive stratospheric 
     ozone title was adopted as an amendment introduced by Rep. 
     Dingell. The House amendment was closer to the final 
     legislation regarding stratospheric ozone than the Senate 
     bill. As in the final legislation, there were no findings or 
     purposes stated in the House bill regarding the need to deal 
     with global warming or referring to carbon dioxide or other 
     greenhouse gases. And, significantly, the definition of the 
     substances that could be regulated, set forth in Section 
     151(a) of Rep. Dingell's bill, did not even arguably include 
     greenhouse gases that were not ozone depleting substances.
       D. The Final Legislation.
       The final legislation that emerged from the conference 
     committee and became law contains a stratospheric ozone title 
     that was a compromise between the House and Senate versions. 
     However, the House version prevailed completely in 
     eliminating the language in the Senate bill that would have 
     authorized regulation of non-ozone depleting greenhouse gases 
     such as carbon dioxide. Title VI as enacted did not include 
     the Senate's language authorizing EPA to regulate 
     ``manufactured substances'' in terms broad enough to cover 
     both substances that deplete the ozone layer and substances 
     that do not deplete the ozone layer but which affect global 
     climate. Instead, CAA Section 602(a) as enacted requires the 
     Administrator to list ``Class I'' and ``Class II'' substances 
     that would be phased out pursuant to CAA Sections 605 and 606 
     These substances are defined as those which could affect the 
     stratospheric ozone layer; nothing in the definition of such 
     substances refers to global climate change. And there are no 
     findings or purposes included anywhere in the CAA 
     specifically regarding global warming or the need to regulate 
     greenhouse gases, as there had been in the Senate bill.
       In sum, the Senate in 1990 plainly saw the need to adopt 
     amendments to the CAA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 
     Yet all of the provisions proposed in the Senate dealing with 
     global warming--the findings and purposes language and the 
     ``manufactured substances'' language which were in the final 
     Senate bill, as well as the authority to impose NSPS 
     requirements for carbon dioxide on mobile, stationary and 
     residential sources and the authority to impose carbon 
     dioxide tailpipe standards which had been considered in the 
     Senate Committee--were not enacted. Instead, only the non-
     regulatory provisions on global warming discussed above were 
     enacted. No conclusion is possible other than that Congress 
     determined that it did not intend to authorize regulation of 
     greenhouse gases.

[[Page 11738]]


     IV. OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS REGARDING POTENTIAL GLOBAL 
         CLIMATE CHANGE DEMONSTRATE CONGRESS' INTENT NOT TO 
         REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS.
       A. Introduction.
       Courts have consistently ruled that ``[iln determining the 
     meaning of a statute, the courts look not only at the 
     specific statute at issue, but at its context of related 
     statutes. Similarly, ``. . . in a situation in which prior 
     law may be unclear it is appropriate to examine a later 
     germane statute for aid in construing the earlier law.
       Congress' rejection of greenhouse gas regulation in the 
     1990 CAA Amendments has a detailed context stretching back to 
     the late 1970s when the issue first arose. In the two decades 
     since that time, Congressional committees have held dozens of 
     hearings on the subject, and Congress has enacted a number of 
     major items of legislation dealing with potential global 
     climate change both before and after the 1990 CAA Amendments.
       In all of this time, and with all of this intensive 
     consideration, Congress has consistently rejected measures to 
     restrict greenhouse gas emissions. As seen, Congress rejected 
     efforts to amend the CAA to adopt such measures. It also 
     rejected efforts to adopt such measures in the omnibus Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), and it rejected such efforts in 
     other legislative vehicles as well. Instead, Congress has 
     adopted legislation for various Executive Branch agencies to 
     study the matter and report back to Congress. It has also 
     declared it to be U.S. policy to participate in international 
     negotiations regarding climate change that may eventually 
     lead, if Congress so determines in the future, to a decision 
     to authorize restrictions on U.S. emissions of greenhouse 
     gases. In the meantime, pending further action, Congress has 
     explicitly determined, through the Senate's ratification of 
     the Rio Treaty, that the United States will not adopt binding 
     or mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
       It is simply not possible to square this history of 
     Congressional rejection of greenhouse gas restrictions with 
     EPA's claim today of discretion to issue far-reaching 
     regulations.
       B. The Energy Policy Act of 1992.
       EPAct is omnibus legislation containing 30 titles on the 
     subject of energy regulation and policy. The global warming 
     issue was discussed in detail during the legislative history 
     of the Act. The final legislation contains a specific global 
     climate change title, Title XVI. The title contains various 
     provisions for study, planning and funding but no provisions 
     authorizing mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.
       As with the 1990 CAA Amendments, the non-regulatory 
     provisions of EPAct were adopted in lieu of proposals 
     specifically to mandate restrictions on greenhouse gas 
     emissions. For instance, Senator Wirth, in the 100th and 
     101st Congresses, introduced omnibus national energy 
     legislation containing detailed findings and purposes 
     language describing global warming as an imminent threat to 
     mankind. Both bills would have established a national goal 
     ``that the introduction into the atmosphere of C02 from the 
     United States of America shall be reduced from 1988 levels by 
     at least 20 per centurn by the year 2000 through a mix of 
     Federal and State energy policies that are designed to 
     mitigate the costs and risks, both economic and 
     environmental, associated with meeting national energy needs 
     while reducing the generation of carbon dioxide and trace 
     gases and sustaining economic growth and development. Both 
     bills would have required DOE to adopt a national energy plan 
     designed to meet such goal.''' The plan would be required to 
     include an action plan which DOE ``shall implement . . . to 
     the maximum extent possible.'' None of these provisions, 
     however, were included in EPAct.
       Another proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions 
     rejected by Congress in the debate over EPAct was the so-
     called Cooper-Synar bill. Cooper-Synar was originally 
     introduced as H.R. 5966 in the 101st Congress and again as 
     H.R. 2663 in the 102d Congress. The bill proposed to amend 
     the CAA to prohibit operation of new stationary sources that 
     emit 100,000 tons or more per year of carbon dioxide without 
     obtaining offsets under a permit program to be established by 
     EPA. It was opposed by the Bush Administration, which took 
     the position during the debate on EPAct that the United 
     States should undertake no actions regarding global warming 
     other than those which would be economically justified for 
     other reasons (the so-called ``no regrets'' strategy).
       A much watered down version of Cooper-Synar was included as 
     Section 1605 of EPAct, but only after its sponsors had 
     assured Congress that any provisions of a binding or 
     regulatory nature had been removed. As enacted, Section 1605 
     provides for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emission 
     reductions, in contrast to the mandatory restrictions 
     originally proposed. Section 1605 was offered as an amendment 
     to H.R. 776, the bill that became EPAct, by Rep. 
     Cooper'during the mark-up of that legislation in the House 
     Subcommittee on Energy and Power. It was included in H.R. 776 
     as passed by the House but was opposed by the Administration 
     in the Senate. Speaking in favor of Rep. Cooper's amendment 
     on the floor of the Senate, Senator Lieberman (who co-
     sponsored the Cooper language in the Senate) stated:
       ``As a part of this energy bill, the Senator from Colorado 
     [Mr. Wirth] who is on the floor now, and I, have prepared a 
     simple amendment, virtually identical to one offered by 
     Representative Jim Cooper to H.R. 776, the House energy bill, 
     which [H.R. 776 without the Cooper amendment] was adopted 
     unanimously on a bipartisan basis by the House Subcommittee 
     on Energy and Power.
       ``That amendment would have provided the Administrator of 
     EPA with the power to establish a system for rewarding the 
     good work of industries that voluntarily--and I stress 
     voluntarily--either reduced their own greenhouse gas 
     emissions or undertake programs to reduce emissions from 
     other sources.
       ``This was a simple amendment. It did not set goals or 
     mandates. It did not establish timetables. It did not require 
     reductions. It did not impose a requirement on firms to 
     obtain credits or reduce emissions. But it did provide that 
     good corporate citizens who voluntarily contribute to 
     greenhouse gas emissions will have an opportunity to let the 
     Government record their efforts at reducing those emissions 
     in a data bank.''
       As can be seen, Congress chose to reject the original 
     Cooper-Synar proposal which had included all the requirements 
     that Senator Lieberman informed Congress were not included in 
     the voluntary reporting proposal that was enacted, that is, 
     goals and mandates, timetables, required emissions reductions 
     and required offsets. Instead, Congress adopted non-binding 
     provisions as to greenhouse gases, consistent with the 
     description of U.S. policy towards potential global warming 
     enunciated in the House Report on H.R. 776, the bill that 
     became law:
       ``The greenhouse warming title, together with the numerous 
     provisions in the rest of the comprehensive energy bill, 
     embodies the following basic approach: We should take cost-
     effective actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
     (such as improving energy efficiency, facilitating coalbed 
     methane recovery, and promoting renewable energy resources); 
     we should analyze the important technical and policy issues 
     that will enable us to make wiser decisions on more dramatic 
     and possibly higher cost actions which should be taken only 
     in the context of concerted international action.''
       As with the 1990 CAA Amendments, the view of the global 
     climate change issue that prevailed in the debate over EPAct 
     did not include, and specifically rejected, mandatory 
     restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
       C. The Rio Treaty
       As reflected in the 1992 Report of the House Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce on the legislation that became EPAct, 
     Congress has consistently resisted adopting mandatory 
     restrictions of greenhouse gas emissions in part because 
     Congress wished to address what was essentially an 
     international issue in an international forum. Indeed, for 
     all of the period during which such restrictions were being 
     proposed in Congress, and particularly during debate of the 
     CAA Amendments of 1990 and the 1992 EPAct, the issue of 
     potential greenhouse gas restrictions was the subject of 
     intense international negotiation. However, as the following 
     discussion shows, those negotiations have never resulted in 
     Congress approving, in a treaty or otherwise, binding 
     restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
       The U.S. Government has been extensively involved in 
     international discussions concerning human impacts on the 
     global climate at least since 1979 when the first conference 
     of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United 
     Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the International 
     Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) was held. After a number 
     of additional international conferences during the 1980s, the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created 
     to address the issue of climate change. The first of a number 
     of IPCC meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland in November, 
     1988 and was attended by thirty-five nations, including the 
     United States. The IPCC produces reports on global warming 
     science, potential environmental and economic impacts and 
     potential response strategies. It also advises the 
     International Negotiating Committee, (INC).
       The INC was established by the United Nations General 
     Assembly on December 21, 1990 to coordinate negotiation of an 
     international treaty dealing with potential climate change. 
     These negotiations led to adoption, on May 9, 1992, of the 
     Framework Convention on Climate Change, or Rio Treaty, by the 
     resumed fifth session of the INC. The Framework Convention 
     was signed on behalf of the United States on June 12, 1992. 
     The U.S. Senate ratified the Framework Convention on October 
     7, 1992 by the required two-thirds vote.
       The Framework Convention calls for the U.S., on a non-
     binding basis, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 
     levels by the year 2000. It was ratified by the Senate with 
     the clear understanding that the reductions called for in the 
     treaty are purely voluntary. As a part of the Hearings of the 
     Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the Framework 
     Convention, the Committee submitted

[[Page 11739]]

     written questions to the Administration on various aspects of 
     the Treaty. These questions and the Administration responses 
     were included as an Appendix to the transcript of the 
     Hearings of the Committee. In responding to these questions, 
     the Administration represented that its responses could be 
     considered to be ``authoritative statements for the Executive 
     Branch.'' With respect to subparagraphs 2(a) and (b) of 
     Article 4, which are the provisions containing the operative 
     U.S. commitments as to targets and timetables for emissions 
     reductions, the Administration stated:
       ``Neither subparagraph 2(a) nor subparagraph 2(b), whether 
     taken individually or jointly, creates a legally binding 
     target or timetable for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
       Similarly, the Report of the Senate Committee on Foreign 
     Relations favorably reporting the Framework Convention states 
     that:
       ``Article 4.2b establishes an additional reporting 
     requirement for developed country parties, including those 
     with economies in transition, requiring them to report on 
     national policies and measures adopted pursuant to Article 
     4.2a, and on the projected impact of these measures on net 
     emissions up to the end of the decade, with the aim of 
     returning these emissions to their 1990 levels. This aim is 
     in the reporting section of article 4.2 and is not legally 
     binding.'' The Framework Convention was ratified by the 
     Senate with the further understanding that the Administration 
     could not agree to amendments of or protocols to the treaty 
     creating binding emissions reduction commitments without the 
     further consent of the Senate. The Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee Report states:
       ``The committee notes that a decision by the Conference of 
     the Parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be 
     submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the 
     United States could deposit its instruments of ratification 
     for such an agreement.
       ``The committee notes further that a decision by the 
     executive branch to reinterpret the Convention to apply 
     legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions 
     of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the 
     `shared understanding' of the Convention between the Senate 
     and the executive branch and would therefore require the 
     Senate's advice and consent.
       The Framework Convention is perhaps the most authoritative 
     statement of U.S. policy regarding greenhouse gas emissions. 
     It represented years.of effort both domestically and 
     internationally. The result of that effort is a plain 
     statement directly antithetical to EPA's claim that it has 
     discretionary authority to impose mandatory restrictions on 
     greenhouse gas emissions. To the contrary, Congress clearly 
     has refused to delegate such authority to the agency.
       D. Other Congressional Action. on Global Warming.
       Three other Congressional enactments regarding global 
     warming bear mentioning because they each demonstrate 
     Congress' intent to reserve for itself the decision on 
     whether regulation of carbon dioxide emissions should be 
     undertaken.
       First, on December 22, 1987, Congress enacted its first 
     legislation specifically targeting the global warming 
     question, the National Climate Program Act. Congress chose 
     not to enact restrictions on the emission of greenhouse 
     gases. Instead, it explicitly recognized the need for an 
     international approach to the global warming issue, and it 
     recognized the need for further study of the issue. Towards 
     this end, the Act provides for the Secretary of State to 
     coordinate U.S. participation in international negotiations 
     regarding global climate change. And it provides that the 
     President, through EPA, shall be responsible for developing 
     and proposing to Congress a coordinated national policy on 
     global climate change.
       Second, on November 16, 1990, Congress adopted the Global 
     Change Research Act, providing for the President to establish 
     a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences to coordinate 
     a ten year research effort.
       Finally, on November 28, 1990, as Title XXIV of the Food 
     and Agriculture Act of 1990, Congress directed the Secretary 
     of Agriculture to establish a Global Climate Change Program 
     to research global climate agricultural issues and to provide 
     liaison with foreign countries on such issues.
       These enactments are consistent with the approach taken by 
     Congress in the 1990 CAA Amendments, in EPAct and at Rio: 
     study the issue and participate in international 
     negotiations. However, no agency of the executive branch 
     possesses authority to regulate on such matter.
       E. The Kyoto Protocol.
       The international community has continued negotiations on 
     the global warming issue culminating in the Kyoto Protocol. 
     The Kyoto Protocol would create legally binding mandates on 
     certain countries, including the United States, to restrict 
     greenhouse gas emissions by certain amounts as of certain 
     dates. As stated, prior to the negotiation of the Kyoto 
     Protocol, the Senate, by a vote of 95-0 passed a resolution 
     stating that the Senate would not ratify any treaty absent 
     meaningful participation from Third World countries and if 
     the treaty would damage the U.S. economy. The Administration 
     has not yet submitted the proposed protocol to the Senate for 
     ratification pending further international negotiations. The 
     Kyoto Protocol has no legal standing unless ratified by the 
     Senate.
       F. Sum as to Congressional Climate Change Legislation.
       Through nearly two decades of debate on what may be the 
     most important environmental issue of our time, Congress has 
     consistently rejected efforts to regulate carbon dioxide 
     emissions. Its intent could not be more plain: unless 
     Congress acts, neither EPA nor any other agency has authority 
     to restrict such emissions.
     V. CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS DO NOT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH 
         OR WELFARE.
       Our analysis above has examined whether the CAA is intended 
     to regulate the changes to global climate that are assertedly 
     resulting from a human-induced enhancement of the natural 
     greenhouse effect. We stated at the outset that such analysis 
     is not dependent on whether or not carbon dioxide emissions 
     are, in fact, leading to dangerous climate change. We have 
     shown that, even if, arguendo it could be demonstrated 
     reliably that carbon dioxide emissions are leading to 
     dangerous climate change, EPA nevertheless may not regulate 
     such emissions under the CAA.
       The available evidence, however, would not support a 
     finding that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering the 
     public health, welfare or environment. The Greening Earth 
     Society report that accompanies this legal analysis 
     demonstrates that, objectively viewed, the scientific 
     evidence of potential global climate change supports a 
     conclusion that there is no climatological catastrophe 
     underway or likely to occur, as is so often claimed.
       We are, of course, familiar with the deferential standards 
     that apply when EPA is making complex technical judgments 
     relying on information ``from the frontiers of scientific 
     knowledge.'' We are also aware that EPA, given the 
     precautionary nature of the CAA, may regulate urder the 
     ``endanger'' standard without definitive proof of actual 
     harm.
       On the other hand, deference to technical agency 
     decisionmaking, does not trump the substantial evidence test 
     as to agency factual determinations or the arbitrary and 
     capricious standard as to policy decisions. EPA may regulate 
     under the ``endangerment'' standard only where there is a 
     finding of ``significant risk of harm.'' EPA must take a 
     ``hard look'' at the evidence and engage in ``reasoned 
     decision making.'' Moreover, EPA has a burden to demonstrate 
     that its methodology is reliable, and such burden ``requires 
     more than reliance on the unknown, either by speculation, or 
     mere shifting of the burden of proof.'' The Greening Earth 
     Society report shows that the evidence on which EPA would 
     rely to show dangerous climate change as a result of carbon 
     dioxide emissions cannot meet these standards.
       Application of the arbitrary and capricious test is 
     particularly important in judging the use by EPA of computer 
     simulation models as the basis for a conclusion that carbon 
     dioxide emissions are harming the public health, welfare or 
     environment. Again, courts will defer to agency expertise in 
     their reliance on computer models. But Courts will overturn 
     agency decisionmaking where reliance on a computer model was 
     arbitrary and capricious. In particular, oversimplifications 
     in models can render an agency decision arbitrary. Similarly, 
     agency decisionmaking will be deemed arbitrary where a model 
     incorporates assumptions which are known to be wrong and 
     which bear no rational relationship to known information 
     concerning the data being inputted or the phenomenon being 
     measured. Each step of an agency's analysis using a model 
     will be examined to ensure that ``the agency has not departed 
     from a rational course.'' Again, the Greening Earth Society 
     report shows the many technical flaws in the computer models 
     on which claims of a pending climate disaster are based. Use 
     of these models to supply the technical justification to 
     regulate carbon dioxide would be arbitrary. in sum, there is 
     no basis for EPA to regulate carbon dioxide either as a 
     matter of law under the terms of the CAA or as a matter of 
     fact under the ``endanger the public health, welfare or 
     environment'' standard.


                               CONCLUSION

       The congressional testimony of the EPA Administrator that 
     EPA currently has authority to regulate carbon dioxide, 
     followed by the release of a legal opinion by its general 
     counsel supporting the Administrator's claim, raises the 
     question of whether EPA intends to move forward with carbon 
     dioxide regulation. Our analysis shows that any such effort 
     by EPA would be unlawful.
       In particular, the plain language and structure of the CAA 
     does not support an effort to regulate carbon dioxide. 
     Similarly, the legislative history of the CAA and of the 
     various Congressional enactments regarding carbon dioxide 
     demonstrate Congress' express decision, based on years of 
     explicit and detailed consideration of the matter, not to 
     regulate

[[Page 11740]]

     in the area of carbon dioxide and potential climate change.
       Proponents of greenhouse gas regulation have tried 
     diligently through the years to obtain a different result. 
     They have not been successful. Unless Congress provides the 
     authority EPA plainly desires, the agency cannot regulate 
     carbon dioxide emissions.
       Dated: October 12, 1998. Prepared by: National Mining 
     Association Legal Affairs Committee.
                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 1998.


                               MEMORANDUM

       Subject: EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by 
     Electric Power Generation Sources.
       From: Jonathan Z. Cannon, General Counsel.
       To: Carol M. Browner, Administrator.
     I. Introduction and Background
       This opinion was prepared in response to a request from 
     Congressman DeLay to you on March 11, 1998, made in the 
     course of a Fiscal Year 1999 House Appropriations Committee 
     Hearing. In the Hearing, Congressman DeLay referred to an EPA 
     document entitled ``Electricity Restructuring and the 
     Environment: What Authority Does EPA Have and What Does It 
     Need.'' Congressman DeLay read several sentences from the 
     document stating that EPA currently has authority under the 
     Clean Air Act (Act) to establish pollution control 
     requirements for four pollutants of concern from electric 
     power generation: nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur 
     dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), 
     and mercury. He also asked whether you agreed with the 
     statement, and in particular, whether you thought that the 
     Clean Air Act allows EPA to regulate emissions of carbon 
     dioxide. You agreed with the statement that the Clean Air Act 
     grants EPA broad authority to address certain pollutants, 
     including those listed, and agreed to Congressman DeLay's 
     request for a legal opinion on this point. This opinion 
     discusses EPA's authority to address all four of the 
     pollutants at issue in the colloquy, and in particular, 
     CO2, which was the subject of Congressman DeLay's 
     specific question.
       The question of EPA's legal authority arose initially in 
     the context of potential legislation addressing the 
     restructuring of the utility industry. Electric power 
     generation is a significant source of air pollution, 
     including the four pollutants addressed here. On March 25, 
     1998, the Administration announced a Comprehensive 
     Electricity Competition Plan (Plan) to produce lower prices, 
     a cleaner environment, increased innovation and government 
     savings. This Plan includes a proposal to clarify EPA's 
     authority regarding the establishment of a cost-effective 
     interstate cap and trading system for NOX 
     reductions addressing the regional transport contributions 
     needed to attain and maintain the primary National Ambient 
     Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The Plan does not 
     ask Congress for authority to establish a cap and trading 
     system for emissions of carbon dioxide from utilities as part 
     of the Administration's electricity restructuring proposal. 
     The President has called for cap-and-trade authority for 
     greenhouse gases to be in place by 2008, and the Plan states 
     that the Administration will consider in consultation with 
     Congress the legislative vehicle most appropriate for that 
     purpose.
       As this opinion discusses, the Clean Air Act provides EPA 
     authority to address air pollution, and a number of specific 
     provisions of the Act are potentially applicable to control 
     these pollutants from electric power generation. However, as 
     was made clear in the document from which Congressman DeLay 
     quoted, these potentially applicable provisions do not easily 
     lend themselves to establishing market-based national or 
     regional cap-and-trade programs, which the Administration 
     favors for addressing these kinds of pollution problems.
     II. Clean Air Act Authority
       The Clean Air Act provides that EPA may regulate a 
     substance if it is (a) an ``air pollutant,'' and (b) the 
     Administrator makes certain findings regarding such pollutant 
     (usually related to danger to public health, welfare, or the 
     environment) under one or more of the Act's regulatory 
     provisions.
       A. Definition of Air Pollutant
       Each of the four substances of concern as emitted from 
     electric power generating units falls within the definition 
     of ``air pollutant'' under section 302(g). Section 302(g) 
     defines ``air pollutant'' as ``any air pollution agent or 
     combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, 
     biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which 
     is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such 
     term includes any precursors to the formation of any air 
     pollutant, to the extent that the Administrator has 
     identified such precursor or precursors for the particular 
     purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is used.''
       This broad definition states that ``air pollutant'' 
     includes any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive 
     substance or matter that is emitted into or otherwise enters 
     the ambient air. SO2, NOX, 
     CO2 and mercury from electric power generation are 
     each a ``physical [and] chemical . . . substance which is 
     emitted into . . . the ambient air,'' and hence, each is an 
     air pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
       A substance can be an air pollutant even though it is 
     naturally present in air in some quantities. Indeed, many of 
     the pollutants that EPA currently regulates are naturally 
     present in the air in some quantity and are emitted from 
     natural as well as anthropogenic sources. For example, 
     SO2 is emitted from geothermal sources; volatile 
     organic compounds (precursors to ozone) are emitted by 
     vegetation; and particulate matter and NOX are 
     formed from natural sources through natural processes, such 
     as naturally occurring forest fires. Some substances 
     regulated under the Act as hazardous air pollutants are 
     actually necessary in trace quantities for human life, but 
     are toxic at higher levels or through other routes of 
     exposure. Manganese and selenium are two examples of such 
     pollutants. EPA regulates a number of naturally occurring 
     substances as air pollutants, however, because human 
     activities have increased the quantities present in the air 
     to levels that are harmful to public health, welfare, or the 
     environment.
       B. EPA Authori!y to Regulate Air Pollutants
       EPA's regulatory authority extends to air pollutants, 
     which, as discussed above, are defined broadly under the Act 
     and include SO2, NOX, CO2, 
     and mercury emitted into the ambient air. Such a general 
     statement of authority is distinct from an EPA determination 
     that a particular air pollutant meets the specific criteria 
     for EPA action under a particular provision of the Act. A 
     number of specific provisions of the Act are potentially 
     applicable to these pollutants emitted from electric power 
     generation. Many of these specific provisions for EPA action 
     share a common feature in that the exercise of EPA's 
     authority to regulate air pollutants is linked to a 
     determination by the Administrator regarding the air 
     pollutants' actual or potential harmful effects on public 
     health, welfare or the environment. See, e.g., sections 108, 
     109, 111(b), 112, and 115. See also sections 202(a), 211(c), 
     231, 612, and 615. The legislative history of the 1977 Clean 
     Air Act Amendments provides extensive discussion of Congress' 
     purposes in adopting the language used throughout the Act 
     referencing a reasonable anticipation that a substance 
     endangers public health or welfare. One of these purposes was 
     ``[t]o emphasize the preventative or precautionary nature of 
     the act, i.e., to assure that regulatory action can 
     effectively prevent harm before it occurs; to emphasize the 
     predominant value of protection of public health.'' H.R. Rep. 
     No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., at 49 (Report of the 
     Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce). Another 
     purpose was ``[t]o assure that the health of susceptible 
     individuals, as well as healthy adults, will be encompassed 
     in the term `public health,' . . . .'' Id. at 50. ``Welfare'' 
     is defined in section 302(h) of the Act, which states:
       ``[a]ll language referring to effects on welfare includes, 
     but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, 
     vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, 
     visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of 
     property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects 
     on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being, 
     whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination 
     with other air pollutants.''
       EPA has already regulated SO2, NOX 
     and mercury based on determinations by EPA or Congress that 
     these substances have negative effects on public health, 
     welfare, or the environment. While CO2, as an air 
     pollutant, is within EPA's scope of authority to regulate, 
     the Administrator has not yet determined that CO2, 
     meets the criteria for regulation under one or more 
     provisions of the Act. Specific regulatory criteria under 
     various provisions of the Act could be met if the 
     Administrator determined under one or more of those 
     provisions that CO2 emissions are reasonably 
     anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse effects on 
     public health, welfare, or the environment.
       C. EPA Authority To Implement an Emissions Cap-and-Trade 
           Approach
       The specific provisions of the Clean Air Act that are 
     potentially applicable to control emissions of the pollutants 
     discussed here can largely be categorized as provisions 
     relating to either state programs for pollution control under 
     Title I (e.g., sections 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, 126, and 
     Part D of Title I), or national regulation of stationary 
     sources through technology-based standards (e.g., sections 
     111 and 112). None of these provisions easily lends itself to 
     establishing market-based national or regional emissions cap-
     and-trade programs.
       The Clean Air Act provisions relating to state programs do 
     not authorize EPA to require states to control air pollution 
     through economically efficient cap-and-trade programs and do 
     not provide full authority for EPA itself to impose such 
     programs. Under certain provisions in Title I, such as 
     section 110, EPA may facilitate regional approaches to 
     pollution control and encourage states to cooperate in a 
     regional, cost-effective emissions cap-and-trade approach 
     (see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Finding of Significant 
     Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone 
     Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing

[[Page 11741]]

     Regional Transport of Ozone, 62 F.R. 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997)). 
     EPA does not have authority under Title I to require states 
     to use such measures, however, because the courts have held 
     that EPA cannot mandate specific emission control measures 
     for states to use in meeting the general provisions for 
     attaining ambient air quality standards. See Commonwealth of 
     Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Under 
     certain limited circumstances where states fail to carry out 
     their responsibilities under Title I of the Clean Air Act, 
     EPA has authority to take certain actions, which might 
     include establishing a cap-and-trade program. Yet EPA's 
     ability to invoke these provisions for federal action depends 
     on the actions or inactions of the states.
       Technology-based standards under the Act directed to 
     stationary sources have been interpreted by EPA not to allow 
     compliance through intersource, cap-and-trade approaches. The 
     Clean Air Act provisions for national technology-based 
     standards under sections 111 and 112 require EPA to 
     promulgate regulations to control emissions of air pollutants 
     from stationary sources. To maximize the opportunity for 
     trading of emissions within a source, EPA has defined the 
     term ``stationary source'' expansively, such that a large 
     facility can be considered a ``source.'' Yet EPA has never 
     gone so far as to define as a source a group of facilities 
     that are not geographically connected, and EPA has long held 
     the view that trading across plant boundaries is 
     impermissible under sections 111 and 112, See, e.g., National 
     Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source 
     Categories; Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the 
     Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, 59 Fed. 
     Reg. 19402 at 19425-26 (April 22, 1994).
     III. Conclusion
       EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act extends 
     to air pollutants, which, as discussed above, are defined 
     broadly under the Act and include SO2, 
     NOX, CO2, and mercury emitted into the 
     ambient air. EPA has in fact already regulated each of these 
     substances under the Act, with the exception of 
     CO2. While CO2 emissions are within the 
     scope of EPA's authority to regulate, the Administrator has 
     made no determination to date to exercise that authority 
     under the specific criteria provided under any provision of 
     the Act.
       With the exception of the SO2 provisions focused 
     on acid rain, the authorities potentially available for 
     controlling these pollutants from electric power generating 
     sources do not easily lend themselves to establishing market-
     based national or regional cap-and-trade programs, which the 
     Administration favors for addressing these kinds of pollution 
     problems. Under certain limited circumstances, where states 
     fail to carry out their responsibilities under Title I of the 
     Act, EPA has authority to take certain actions, which might 
     include establishing a cap-and-trade program. However, such 
     authority depends on the actions or inactions of the states.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member, the gentleman from the State of West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan has spent a considerable 
amount of time on this issue during the last 3 years, beginning with 
the conference report on the 1999 VA-HUD appropriation bill. The 
gentleman mentions today the necessity for clarity with regard to this 
issue, and suggests that there is a certain lack of clarity.
  I would like to speak to that issue, because I respectfully disagree 
that there is anything unclear about the issue or about the agreement 
associated with the issue that was achieved in the context of the 1999 
VA-HUD conference. In that conference it was made clear, to put it in 
simple turns, that the EPA or the United States Government could not, 
would not, under the terms of that conference report, and they 
acknowledged that they would not if there was nothing in the conference 
report, try to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to its being ratified 
by the United States Senate, meaning that they would not engage in a 
rule-making proceeding to establish standards for American industry out 
of any requirement, any agreement, flowing out of the Kyoto Protocol.
  In that agreement, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan was very 
much a part of that negotiation. Subsequent to that, he has worked in 
the report language to modify that original report understanding. His 
modifications, unfortunately, would muddy the original agreement and 
would breach the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, or any 
agency of the United States Government, to engage in international 
conferences and discuss this topic, this global warming topic, in a 
very general way or in a specific way.
  Now, that does muddy the water, because that was never intended. We 
do not want to gag the Environmental Protection Agency. We do not want 
to prevent it from engaging developing economies around the world and 
encouraging them to incorporate increasingly strict emissions standards 
in their countries as their economies develop. We want to encourage 
them to do that.
  Under the gentleman's language, unfortunately, he challenges the 
ability of any government agency to engage in those agreements. That is 
why the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts is clear, because 
it returns the understanding as it is set forth in the 1999 bill and 
report and eliminates all of the confusion created by the gentleman 
from Michigan's efforts subsequent to that time.
  We want to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from 
implementing, from engaging in any rule-making activity under Kyoto, 
and they do not want to do it anyway. We want them also to engage the 
world in this topic, so that the world can improve its environmental 
standards.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has been a strong supporter and 
leader in this effort to bring about some sanity.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, first I really want to commend the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for the tremendous job he has 
done in taking the lead on this issue and also say that, as one who has 
been working fervently to make certain that the Kyoto Protocol is not 
implemented through the back door, I will say that I can live with this 
amendment, because I know that we are working in a bipartisan manner to 
ensure that the administration cannot implement the unratified Kyoto 
Protocol.
  I, too, have some concerns about clarifying the meaning and intent of 
the exact language used in this amendment, and I am hopeful that as we 
work through the process in a bipartisan way, we can get this figured 
out, at least in conference. But let me say for the record, Mr. 
Chairman, that the Senate does stand on record with the unanimous 
bipartisan vote of 95 to 0 that called on the administration not to 
sign the Kyoto Protocol, for lots of reasons, because it is going to 
harm our economy in rural America; because it lets off the hook some of 
our largest trade competitors, like China, India, Mexico and many 
others who, quite frankly, will in the next few years be competing with 
us on somewhat of a level playing field, but yet they will not have to 
abide by any of the emissions restrictions that this protocol would 
have us do here in the United States.
  I am also worried because it is projected to throw about 2.5 million 
Americans out of work. In my rural district, this is a huge problem, 
because we, unlike the cities, are not experiencing the economic 
prosperity that others are seeing today.
  So, meanwhile, in continuing our efforts to find political 
justification for this dangerously flawed treaty, the administration 
has been issuing these climate assessments that even the EPA says are 
nothing more than horror stories based on junk science. I want to make 
certain that we, in fact, do this the right way.
  Mr. Chairman, I am willing, with the approval of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), to accept this amendment; and I sure look 
forward to continuing to work with colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to continue our bipartisan efforts to ensure that the 
administration does not implement through the back door the very 
dangerous Kyoto Protocol before the constitutionally required advise 
and consent of the United States Senate.
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan very much for all his work.

[[Page 11742]]


  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think the question here is whether or not we 
are going to implement the Kyoto Protocol, because we are not, because 
that has not been ratified by the Senate. In my mind, the question is 
do we exchange and do we have the opportunity and the ability to 
exchange information about these climate change research ideas with the 
international community?
  Let me just share some of the research that has come out by about 99 
percent of the scientists involved in this. The atmosphere contains 
only a very tiny trace amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, and yet we know 
through drilling in ice cores around the planet, evaluating the 
landscape, looking at the seas, that in the last 10,000 years carbon 
dioxide has increased about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years, with 
the exception of the last century. It has increased by about 1 degree 
centigrade in the last century.
  If we put that in Fahrenheit degrees, just in this century, most of 
it since World War II, carbon dioxide has increased 4 degrees since 
World War II. Now, if we project that using models over the next 
century, you get anywhere from 5 more degrees increase to 15 degrees 
increase.
  If we look at the atmosphere, if we look at carbon dioxide, we 
understand that is the heat balance that protects the biological 
diversity, the very life on this planet, the heat balance we call now 
as laymen the greenhouse effect.
  Mr. Chairman, there is another example I want to give to you from a 
book on Laboratory Earth by a biologist from Stanford University, who 
is respected throughout the world, not as a nutty scientist, but as a 
reasonable, competent individual. Here is what he says: ``When we burn 
a lump of coal today, we are recovering the carbon dioxide and the 
solar heat of dinosaur times in fossil organic matter.

                              {time}  1315

  While it took millions of years to make a coal deposit, we are 
releasing the CO2 and other embedded elements in tens of years.'' What 
took nature millions of years to lock up as far as carbon dioxide is 
concerned, that greenhouse gas we are releasing in a matter of decades.
  Will that have an effect on our climate? The answer is yes. 
Scientists agree that it is going to have an effect on our climate. 
Sure, there is a lot of dialogue, a lot of discussions about that, but 
that is the important thing. We need to discuss that issue.
  So I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  As usual, I find this a very interesting and stimulating discussion. 
We never really have the time to get into the details, because it is 
very complicated.
  But why should we be suspicious of language changes, as we were here, 
when we received the recent language change? The Clinton-Gore 
administration year after year in their budget process have tried to 
fund implementation of the Kyoto Treaty. It was obvious that there were 
billions of dollars tucked into our budget originally, a treaty that he 
did not present to the Senate, a treaty that was not debated and 
properly approved.
  I guess the question I would ask is why would any bright 
representative of our government agree to such a horribly flawed 
concept as the Kyoto Treaty? This is an agreement negotiated by our 
Vice President who would force American businesses to purchase credits 
from Third World developing countries who are not a part of the 
agreement. Now, think about that. We debate foreign aid here a lot. We 
are going to be requiring American businesses under this agreement to 
be giving dollars to foreign-country developing businesses to compete 
with us. Horribly flawed concept.
  Now, I do not have time to get into detail, but we just heard from 
the last speaker about such agreement. More than half of the scientists 
in this country do not agree to the global warming concept. It is a 
debate that should continue. But there is not agreement out there. In 
fact, the evidence shows that most of the warming was preindustrial 
age, not since we have been into fossil fuels in the last few decades. 
This CO2, this evil force that we are proclaiming, it is 
what is needed for plant life in this country. It is what makes 
vegetation grow. Vegetation makes the exchange from CO2 to 
oxygen. It is part of the life chain.
  Many of those who are crying scare tactics on this are also against 
cutting forests, but young growing forests are the best exchanger and 
absorb more CO2 and give us more oxygen back. This is a 
debate that unfortunately has not happened in this Congress. But we 
continually hear the scare tactics that the seas are rising, the 
shorelines are going to disappear, and that this country is going to be 
in a disaster state.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, that is far from a fact, and we 
should not be scaring people into this. This is a legitimate discussion 
we should have, and no administration should be allowed to use funds to 
sell their theory. They can exchange ideas with other countries, there 
is no prohibition of that. But they should not be using resources to 
sell their global warming scare concepts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver amendment which 
will restore the 1998 agreement that allows the EPA to pursue common 
sense policies on greenhouse gas emissions.
  In 1992, President George Bush signed an international agreement that 
required the U.S. to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Eight years 
later, the U.S. has failed even to make those moderate reductions. 
Instead, our greenhouse gas emissions have increased by more than 10 
percent, and there is no end in sight.
  Some on the other side seem to favor a ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
policy on global warming. Unfortunately, silence will not make this 
problem go away. Even the fossil fuel industry recognizes the threat of 
global warming. BP-Amoco, Sunoco and Shell International have all 
joined the Business Environmental Council, a group dedicated to 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These companies have publicly stated 
their belief that greenhouse emissions directly affect our climate.
  Instead of fighting common sense solutions every step of the way, we 
should be improving our energy efficiency, encouraging voluntary 
reductions, and looking for the most cost-effective ways to cut 
greenhouse gas emissions. I believe this amendment is a step in the 
right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Olver amendment, which will 
restore the 1998 agreement that allows the EPA to pursue common sense 
policies on greenhouse gas emissions.
  Once again, the Republican leadership wants to handcuff the EPA from 
addressing the threat of global climate change.
  Unfortunately, this rider is just one more sign that many in this 
House are in a state of denial when it comes to climate issues.
  It wasn't always this way.
  In 1992, President George Bush signed an international agreement that 
required the U.S. to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
  Eight years later, the U.S. has failed to make even those moderate 
reductions.
  Instead our greenhouse gas emissions have increased by more than 10 
percent, and there is no end in sight.
  Despite increasing emissions, it seems that the Republican policy on 
greenhouse gases has regressed since 1992.
  Language in this year's VA-HUD appropriations report would prevent 
EPA from taking any action to stem the threat of climate change.
  It's questionable if EPA would even be allowed to discuss climate 
policy with other nations.

[[Page 11743]]

  To make matters worse, this bill cuts funding for voluntary climate 
change programs by $124 million.
  Some on the other side seem to favor a ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
policy on global warming.
  Unfortunately, silence will not make this problem go away.
  Each day, the scientific community becomes more united in the belief 
that greenhouse emissions have an effect on global temperature.
  It now appears that the 1990s weren't just the hottest decade of the 
last century, but perhaps of the last millennium.
  Even the fossil fuel industry recognizes the threat of global 
warming.
  BP-Amoco, Sunoco and Shell International have all joined the Business 
Environmental Council, a group dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  These companies have publicly stated their belief that greenhouse 
emissions directly affect our climate.
  They have even called for cuts in emissions that are more stringent 
than those required by the Kyoto protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, with only 4 percent of the world's population, the U.S. 
emits more than 20 percent of global greenhouse gases.
  Any solution to global climate change must include U.S. 
participation.
  Instead of fighting common sense solutions every step of the way, we 
should be improving our energy efficiency, encouraging voluntary 
reductions, and looking for the most cost effective ways to cut 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  This amendment is a step in the right direction, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, just for an inquiry, can I take it from 
what the gentleman has just stated that he believes that we should 
regulate CO2, carbon dioxide, or that the EPA has the authority to 
regulate it?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has 
expired.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, including the time to close; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I do think this debate is what is best about the House of 
Representatives. I think everyone who has spoken today is agreed on 
fundamental policy, and that is Kyoto has not been ratified, it is not 
the law of the land and it should not, therefore, be implemented.
  We have had a continuing debate as far as the language that has been 
included in a number of bills, and I am very pleased that the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) have worked out a compromise.
  In the limited time I have, I simply want to put this debate into 
perspective. Kyoto did not come from the vacuum of space; it did not 
come from Bill Clinton's mind. The fact is, it is a point on a 
continuum that began under the George Bush administration pursuant to a 
treaty President Bush signed on May 9, 1992, that was ratified by the 
United States Senate on October 7 of 1992, and the instrument of 
ratification was signed on October 13. That is where Kyoto came from.
  It is not implemented, but there are discussions, there are 
considerations taking place.
  My concern about the language that has been included in a number of 
bills is that we would be placing qualitative and quantitative 
restrictions on thought, on judgment, on opinion, and on the 
preexchange of information which, in the end, is to all of our benefit 
to make sure that that is not impeded.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) for offering his amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for continuing to have an open mind on this 
issue. Hopefully, all of us will be able to reach an appropriate 
compromise that allows authorized, legal programs to deal with 
environmental problems we face today to continue unimpeded while we 
continue to negotiate enhancement of the Kyoto protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Olver amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Olver amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment protects the younger generation, whom 
otherwise would pay the bill and suffer the consequences of global 
warming.
  Global warming is the largest environmental issue for young adults, 
because the long-term impacts could be disastrous and today's younger 
generation will be left to deal with the costly impacts.
  The human race is engaged in the largest and most dangerous 
experiment in history--an experiment to see what will happen to our 
health and our planet when we change our atmosphere and our climate.
  The buildup of carbon dioxide and other ``greenhouse gases'' in our 
atmosphere causes global warming. The main causes of carbon dioxide are 
burning ever increasing quantities of coal, oil, and gas. These harmful 
gases hold the sun's energy in our atmosphere and are causing our 
world's temperature to increase.
  Like a parked car on a hot day, the sun's heat comes in through car 
windows, but cannot escape. Eventually, you have an unbearably hot car 
and this is now happening to our planet.
  The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, a 
panel of the world's best scientists, have concluded global warming is 
a very real concern. The temperature has already risen as much as five 
degrees in some regions. Today, we see glaciers melting, more heat-
related deaths, and a shift and increase in infectious diseases.
  The most important step we can take to curb global warming is to 
improve our nation's energy efficiency. Our cars and light trucks, 
lighting, home appliances, and power plants could be made much more 
efficient by simply installing the best current technology. Using the 
best technology can also mean more jobs for more Americans.
  But the language in this bill will hamper efforts to seek solutions 
to this serious problem. We can't afford to play deaf and dumb to this 
issue.
  Vote for the Olver amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment will ensure that 
nothing we do here will undermine our ability to address the threat of 
global warming to the extent authorized by current law.
  In the last 2 years, we have had the Knollenberg amendment, which 
would prevent the administration from taking any action that is 
intended to implement the Kyoto protocol prior to ratification. What we 
fear now is that the Knollenberg amendment not be used to interfere 
with existing authorities and obligations under the U.N. Framework 
Convention on Climate Change, the Clean Air Act, and the Constitution. 
The fear that I have is not that we are going to implement the Kyoto 
Treaty, but that the Knollenberg language will act as a gag rule on 
people who are trying to implement other existing laws. That is 
something that this Congress should not accept.
  I would hope that we act sensibly on global warming. The American 
people want us to find solutions to climate change. This amendment will 
help end the harassment of staffers who are trying to find the smartest 
way to protect the environment. I urge all Members to support this 
amendment. It does not implement the Kyoto Treaty; it simply allows EPA 
to act under existing authorities, whether a domestic law or a ratified 
treaty.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  As I read the proposed amendment, it strengthens the committee 
position that ensures the administration will not implement the Kyoto 
protocol without prior congressional consent.

[[Page 11744]]

This was a key element in the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed by the 
Senate in July of 1997. This congressional consent involves the Senate 
in its constitutional role regarding treaties and involves both Houses 
in approving and implementing legislation, regulation, programs and 
initiatives. The amendment clarifies that activities authorized under 
current law and funded by Congress will proceed.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time on this side to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, 
because fundamentally, when it comes to climate change, the House 
should not adopt the posture of the ostrich. We are not compelled to 
act by the Kyoto Treaty. We are compelled to act by common sense, 
common sense to make sure by this amendment that we can move forward 
and do what the law already authorizes people to do, which is to 
continue to talk across the waters.
  The Earth is heating up, and we are a cause. The northern hemisphere 
is the hottest it has been in 1,000 years. The 1990s were the hottest 
decade. The 3 hottest years in human history were 1995, 1997 and 1998. 
Glaciers are rapidly receding. Bird populations are disappearing. Why? 
Why? The answer is clear. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have 
gone up 30 percent since the preindustrial age. They will go up, and 
there should be no doubt about this. They will double, in fact, in the 
next 100 years unless this House pulls its head out of the sand and 
deals with climate change issues. That is a simple fact, and there is 
nothing to debate about that subject.
  Every 6th grader in this country understands that if we double 
CO2 layers in the atmosphere, we will substantially increase 
the temperatures in Chicago and heat deaths will increase in Chicago. 
That is not alarmist. Human life will continue to persist, but Maple 
trees may not in New England.
  This House has got to act; the country understands that. Ford is 
moving, Chrysler is moving, British Petroleum is moving. We need to 
keep this country moving by a simple amendment that will continue to 
allow us to do what we need to do.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage Members on this issue, I think it 
is our individual responsibility to read on this issue. If the 
gentlemen will read the latest evidence, they will conclude we have a 
responsibility to act, not because of the Kyoto, but because of common 
sense.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration has negotiated some time ago the 
Kyoto Protocol. They have yet to submit that treaty to the United 
States Senate for ratification.
  The Constitution demands the Senate's consent, and they will not get 
it. This protocol places such severe restrictions on the United States 
while exempting most countries, including China, Brazil, Mexico, and 
India, from taking any measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent 
emissions.
  The administration took this course of action despite unanimous 
support in the U.S. Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the 
Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations, and on 
the conditions that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of 
this country.
  In closing, let me just say that I support the amendment and look 
forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are 
not authorized.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as an active participant in the initial 
floor debate on the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation I want to clarify 
several issues.
  I supported the effort of my good friend, Mr. Obey, to clarify EPA's 
role. At that time we were concerned that EPA might violate the laws 
against advocating a treaty that has not been ratified by the United 
States Senate.
  We agreed that we should curtail lobbying and other activities, 
including implementing by regulation or statutory action a treaty which 
is, A. not in the interest of the United States, and B. which is not 
ratified and is not going to be ratified.
  The amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation offered 
by Mr. Olver to the VA/HUD appropriations bill today also raises the 
issue of what authority EPA has under current law.
  At this point, I would like to enter into the Record a letter I sent 
to Mr. McIntosh, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National 
Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, and Mr. 
Calvert, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the 
Environment.
  As the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clean Air Act 
amendments of 1990, I understand the boundaries on EPA authority. The 
boundaries must be maintained and not allowed to grow through mission-
creep. I will insist on this point and be watching over EPA.

                                                  October 5, 1999.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on 
         Government Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based 
     on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by 
     the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the 
     Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as 
     methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call 
     my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to 
     Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation 
     Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The 
     Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean 
     Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The 
     latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 
     1990 amendments.
       First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any 
     provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, 
     such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address 
     global climate change. The House, however, did include 
     provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on 
     Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
       Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed 
     amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points 
     out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and 
     global warming, along with provisions implementing the 
     Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol 
     related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate 
     conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
       However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of 
     November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the 
     CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 
     819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions 
     separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers 
     to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public law 
     does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all 
     of the provisions included the Public Law.
       One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, 
     entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases 
     contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United 
     States code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires 
     regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide 
     emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V'' 
     of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be 
     reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon 
     dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose.
       Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled 
     ``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time 
     by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no 
     regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title 
     amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) 
     through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution 
     Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory 
     strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.'' 
     While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon 
     dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never 
     agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for 
     regulatory or other purposes.
       Based on my review of this history and my recollection of 
     the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the 
     House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory 
     provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced 
     section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas 
     emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air 
     Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the 
     United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 
     the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately 
     led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was 
     ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the 
     Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, 
     and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation 
     authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse 
     gases.
       I hope that this is responsive.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                   Ranking Member.


[[Page 11745]]


  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to 
     exceed $75,000 per project, $34,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2002.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of, 
     or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     $23,931,000, to remain available until expended.

                     hazardous substance superfund


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 
     1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3), 
     (c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for 
     construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project; 
     $1,270,000,000 (of which $100,000,000 shall not become 
     available until September 1, 2001), to remain available until 
     expended, consisting of $630,000,000, as authorized by 
     section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and 
     Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law 
     101-508, and $640,000,000 as a payment from general revenues 
     to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as 
     authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated 
     to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a) 
     of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading, $11,500,000 shall be transferred to the 
     ``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain 
     available until September 30, 2002, and $35,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the ``Science and technology'' appropriation 
     to remain available until September 30, 2002.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Bilirakis

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 14.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Bilirakis:
       Page 62, line 2, under the heading, ``Hazardous Substance 
     Superfund'', after ``2002'' insert ``; Provided further, That 
     of amounts appropriated under this heading, $2,000,000 shall 
     be available for purposes of the National Hazardous Waste and 
     Superfund Ombudsman''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. At the appropriate time, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Norwood) will be recognized.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment No. 14 would create a specific line item 
of funding for the Office of the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund 
Ombudsman within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  I am offering this amendment with the intent of asking for unanimous 
consent to withdraw it after Members who wish to be heard on this issue 
have had an opportunity to do so. I appreciate the willingness of the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and members of the Committee 
to work with me as this legislation moves forward to ensure adequate 
funding within the EPA budget for the Office of the National Hazardous 
Waste and Superfund Ombudsman.
  I have experienced, Mr. Chairman, firsthand the Ombudsman's important 
work in connection with the Stauffer Superfund site located in my 
congressional district and my hometown, I might add, in Tarpon Springs, 
Florida. I invited the Ombudsman to conduct an independent review of 
the Stauffer site when it became apparent to me that many of my 
constituents felt that they were shut out of the process by the EPA.
  For example, EPA initially failed to address local residents' 
concerns about the appropriate cleanup standard for arsenic. In 
addition, EPA has not conducted any sinkhole studies to determine if 
the proposed remedy, which includes consolidating the waste on-site 
into a capped mound, will remain intact should sinkholes develop. 
Sinkholes are common in the area, and should the proposed remedy fail 
due to sinkhole development, the waste could contaminate the drinking 
water of the local community.
  The Ombudsman highlighted these concerns in town meetings I sponsored 
to discuss the proposed clean-up plan for the Stauffer site. Because of 
his actions, the EPA has amended the consent decree for the clean-up 
plan and has required additional studies.
  However, something is clearly wrong at the EPA. While I have been 
assured publicly and privately by high-level EPA officials that they 
fully support the activities of the Ombudsman, their actions suggest a 
different attitude.
  For instance, after I planned a June 5 public hearing with the 
Ombudsman, EPA officials threatened to withhold the necessary funding 
to continue his investigation in Tarpon Springs. With the help of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), I was able to exact a guarantee from Administrator Browner 
that adequate funds would be provided for the Ombudsman's important 
work.
  During that June 5 meeting, however, it became clear that EPA did not 
intend to cooperate with the Ombudsman's investigation. EPA Region IV 
representatives stated at the outset that they would make a brief 
presentation and take only 10 minutes of questions, and then they would 
leave, denying my constituents and the Ombudsman a chance to ask some 
very important questions about the revised consent decree.
  In the middle of a question, Mr. Chairman, they stood and walked out 
without saying a word. I was outraged by the contempt displayed by 
these public servants toward the taxpaying public.
  My amendment seeks to ensure that the Ombudsman has the adequate 
funding to continue his independent investigations. The amendment 
creates a specific line item of funding for the Office of the National 
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman. Currently, funding for that 
office is not specifically designated within the VA-HUD appropriations 
act.
  That line item will ensure sufficient resources are made available 
within the EPA's budget to allow the Ombudsman to continue to advocate 
on behalf of local communities afflicted with the Superfund sites.
  The other amendment No. 13 that I intended to offer would establish a 
$2 million line item of funding while also expanding the statutory 
authorities of the Ombudsman to make them consistent with model 
standards for ombudsmen promulgated by the American Bar Association and 
other national organizations. These provisions are necessary to 
preserve the integrity and independence of their investigations and 
prevent interference by EPA officials for political purposes.
  Because this amendment would be subject to a point of order as 
legislating on an appropriations bill, and because I do not want to 
waste the time of the assembly, I have decided not to offer it today. 
However, I want to reiterate how important it is that Superfund 
ombudsmen be allowed to continue to operate independently, underlined 
independently, of the very agency they often investigate.
  Mr. Chairman, our constituents benefit enormously from these advocacy 
efforts. As we have learned in Tarpon

[[Page 11746]]

Springs, Florida, it can be very difficult to overcome EPA 
intransigence. The ombudsmen are critical to give local communities a 
voice in the clean-up process. I urge all of my colleagues to protect 
the interests of their constituents in the Superfund clean-up process 
by supporting necessary funding for that office.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) had been 
previously recognized to claim the time in opposition.
  Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the 
committee, wish to claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. WALSH. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I claim part of the time in opposition due to the fact 
that there is not enough time to discuss this very important issue, but 
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Bilirakis).
  We need to grant the ombudsmen subpoena power. We need to grant the 
ombudsmen subpoena power because there are some grave injustices being 
committed at the EPA, oftentimes with inadequate and bogus science. The 
EPA needs to be held accountable to the people that they were created 
to protect.
  For my fellow Members who may not be familiar with this situation, 
the EPA Ombudsman's office is or should be a final remedy within the 
EPA for anyone with a dispute or grievance with that agency. We all 
want to hold lawsuits to a minimum, particularly when taxpayer dollars 
are involved.
  In numerous other fields, this body has encouraged arbitration in 
lieu of litigation as a tried and true method of holding down court 
costs while still protecting the consumers. It also opens up the 
crowded court dockets, frankly, for cases that truly need to be in 
court.
  This is the purpose of the EPA Ombudsman's office. There is, however, 
a very large problem with how the program is currently being operated. 
Current funding has allowed only two arbitrators for the entire 
country, two for the entire country. Those two officials have no 
binding legal authority to conduct any real investigation into a 
complaint. They cannot force truthful testimony, the release of 
necessary documents, or other evidence. They do not even have the legal 
power to enforce the EPA to participate in a hearing.
  This lack of funding, lack of staff, lack of legal authority has 
given the EPA the ability to run roughshod over local and State 
government and private citizens without any accountability outside of 
Federal court action, which is often a practical impossibility for 
those who have been injured.
  My constituents unfortunately have firsthand experience in what this 
shortcoming really means in real life. In Augusta, Georgia, my farmers 
used sludge from a waste treatment plant as fertilizer on their fields 
after EPA recommended the procedure as a safe and practical means of 
eliminating sludge.
  The farmers explicitly followed the EPA guidelines. It now appears 
this recommended procedure is being seriously questioned, and it may 
have been under question as the farmers were being advised to do so.
  Upon this discovery, did the EPA do anything to look into this 
matter? No. They closed ranks and did everything possible to deflect 
responsibility for the matter. That is not accountability. We do not 
know who is right or wrong in this fiasco at home, but we do believe 
that the EPA Ombudsman should be allowed to find the truth.
  Currently, the Ombudsman has limited authority to examine 
questionable EPA dealings. We need to give this office adequate 
oversight power to watch what the EPA is doing. They are accountable to 
taxpayers, and we need to make sure that they uphold that mission.
  The Bilirakis amendment would give the Ombudsman the legal power to 
force EPA to participate in a grievance hearing. My word, the Chairman 
has a hearing in his hometown and the EPA will not even participate. It 
gives the Ombudsman the ability to compel the agency to testify 
truthfully. For any citizen, business, or agency in this country to be 
held accountable for their actions, it is crucial that they be required 
by law to cooperate with the process of an independent investigation of 
a complaint.
  This measure provides this critical oversight for EPA. It is long 
overdue. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for 
bringing this to our attention. Support this amendment. Support the 
Ombudsman for the EPA.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this to the attention of 
the subcommittee. This is an important issue. He has shown real 
leadership in the course of removing toxic waste or remediating toxic 
waste.
  The Ombudsman is in an important position, and we will work with the 
gentleman through the conference to make sure this important position 
is adequately funded.
  Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, ninety-eight weeks ago, EPA Administrator 
Carole Browner, gave Ombudsman Robert Martin clearance to conduct a 
preliminary review of the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) superfund 
site in my district.
  I know that, in addition to be going asked to look at the IEl site, 
Mr. Martin has experienced any upswing in calls for his attention to 
similar sites across the country--in fact, he advised me in May that he 
is actively working on at least 25 sites.
  But the clock continues to tick by for the people of Lake Township in 
Ohio's Stark County. I can only assume that the delays in issuing the 
findings of his preliminary review are a result of budgetary 
constraints. If this is the case, then the solution offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) will be of great help to our 
community.
  I have high hopes that Mr. Martin will resolve this issue at long 
last. The substantial delays--the report was first promised to be ready 
in September of 1998--exacerbates any threat to public safety. I hope 
that the Ombudsman will be effective in helping Township officials and 
the nearby residents identify testing protocols that will help them 
find peace of mind and the best solutions for this troubled site. 
Again, I will say, if this amendment will speed the process at the IEL 
site, I am certainly for it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Bilirakis Amendment, which earmarks $2 million for the activities of 
the EPA's Ombudsman.
  The office of The Ombudsman performs a vital function that is 
essential to ensuring that the health and safety of communities living 
near hazardous waste sites are not compromised.
  Most importantly, the Ombudsman is the only entity that is truly 
independent. Our constituents can be assured that, if the Ombudsman 
conducts a review of a particular site, that there will be a fair, 
thorough and objective analysis done.
  This is an essential office that desperately needs funding.
  $2 million will not bust that bank.
  For a very, very modest investment, the taxpayers are getting a huge 
return.
  I think the country is lucky to have the services of Bob Martin, the 
EPA Ombudsman.
  He is highly competent, he is honest and he is effective.
  I urge approval of the amendment, and I commend the gentlemen from 
Florida for bringing this amendment forward.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, today I speak in support of providing 
additional funds to support the Environmental Protection Agency's 
National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman. The Office of the 
Ombudsman has been instrumental in providing further investigation and 
access to information for the public on a number of complicated 
Superfund sites across the nation.
  There are many communities across the United States impacted by years 
of hazardous waste disposal. The very laws and agencies involved in 
cleaning up these very dangerous sites often become mired in legal 
tangles and beaucratic inertia. The Office of the Ombudsman has been an 
ally of citizens to further insured that public health and the 
environment reman at the forefront in clean up decisions at Superfund 
sites. The Ombudsman also plays

[[Page 11747]]

an important role regarding oversight of the EPA, ensuring that harmful 
decisions are corrected and that information surrounding Superfund 
sites is available for the public.
  In my district, the Office of the Ombudsman was useful in 
investigating the Shattuck Waste Disposal Site in Denver. The Ombudsman 
redirected EPA's focus by fostering greater public participation in 
EPA's decision to allow radioactive waste to remain in an urban 
neighborhood. To better protect public health and the environment, I 
believe it is appropriate that the Office of the Ombudsman receive 
adequate funds to sustain their mission of advocating for substantive 
public involvement in EPA decisions.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                leaking underground storage tank program

       For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground 
     storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of 
     the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and 
     for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and 
     renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project, 
     $79,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                           oil spill response


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill 
     Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended.

                   state and tribal assistance grants

       For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance, 
     including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and 
     performance partnership grants, $3,176,957,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be 
     for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act, as amended; $825,000,000 shall be for 
     capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as 
     amended, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds made 
     available under this heading in this Act, or in previous 
     appropriations Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator 
     for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants; 
     $75,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering, 
     planning, design, construction and related activities in 
     connection with the construction of high priority water and 
     wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico 
     Border, after consultation with the appropriate border 
     commission; $8,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of 
     Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater 
     infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages; 
     $1,068,957,000 shall be for grants, including associated 
     program support costs, to States, federally recognized 
     tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air 
     pollution control agencies for multi-media or single media 
     pollution prevention, control and abatement and related 
     activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions 
     set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for 
     making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for 
     particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the 
     limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control 
     revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the 
     fund shall not apply to amounts included as principal in 
     loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2001 and prior years 
     where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund, 
     to the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable 
     by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other 
     assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the 
     fund, including administration of the fund: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding section 518(f ) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, the Administrator is authorized to use 
     the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year under section 
     319 of that Act to make grants to Indian tribes pursuant to 
     section 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all claims for 
     principal and interest registered through any current grant 
     dispute or any other such dispute hereafter filed by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency relative to construction 
     grants numbers C-180840-01, C-180840-04, C-470319-03, and C-
     470319-04, are hereby resolved in favor of the grantee.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the 
language beginning with the words ``except that'' appearing at page 63, 
line 4, and following through the words ``drinking water contaminants'' 
on line 9 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives prohibiting legislation on an appropriations bill.
  The language in question countermands the directive given to the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in section 1452(n) 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act that she reserve $10 million of funds 
appropriated to the drinking water State revolving funds for health 
effects studies on drinking water contaminants.
  As such, Mr. Chairman, it changes current law and constitutes a 
violation, as I have said earlier, of clause 2 of rule XXI. I must 
regrettably insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on this point 
of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this provision 
explicitly supersedes existing law, in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        administrative provision

       For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the obligated balances 
     of sums available in multiple-year appropriations accounts 
     shall remain available through the seventh fiscal year after 
     their period of availability has expired for liquidating 
     obligations made during the period of availability.

                   Executive Office of the President

                office of science and technology policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $5,150,000.

  council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality

       For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to 
     the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of 
     Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act 
     of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,900,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 202 of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist 
     of one member, appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and 
     exercising all powers, functions, and duties of the Council.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                      office of inspector general


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $33,661,000, to be derived from the Bank 
     Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and 
     the FSLIC Resolution Fund.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency

                            disaster relief


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $300,000,000, and, notwithstanding 42 
     U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $5,500,000 shall be transferred to ``Emergency management 
     planning and assistance'' for the consolidated emergency 
     management performance grant program; of which $30,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the ``Flood map modernization fund'' 
     account; and up to $50,000,000 may be obligated for pre-
     disaster mitigation projects and repetitive loss buyouts (in 
     addition to funding provided by 42 U.S.C. 5170c) following 
     disaster declarations.

                              {time}  1345


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Boyd

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boyd:
       Page 66, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,609,220,000)''.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.

[[Page 11748]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in North Florida that has been 
hit by a hurricane or tropical storm almost every year in recent 
history. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is the 911 service 
that we all rely on when disaster strikes. In order to ensure that FEMA 
has the resources necessary to provide relief to disaster victims, the 
administration and the Congress are supposed to set aside the 
sufficient funds to cover the average yearly cost for disasters for the 
last 5 years.
  This year, the administration did its job, and they requested $2.9 
billion for FEMA to provide disaster relief. Now, this money is used to 
provide aid to families and individuals, clear debris, repair 
infrastructure damages to our communities, any damages that are caused 
by Presidentially declared natural disasters.
  Unfortunately, because of the completely unrealistic spending 
constraints placed on this bill, FEMA only received $300 million for 
disaster assistance in this bill. This is over $2.4 billion less than 
what was appropriated last year by this Congress and $2.6 billion less 
than the 5-year average that we should have placed in this account to 
ensure that FEMA has the resources that they need.
  Now, many of the opponents of this amendment will argue that we can 
quickly pass an emergency supplemental when disaster assistance is 
needed. Well, let us just take a look at how quickly supplementals move 
in this Congress. Five months ago, this House passed this year's 
emergency supplemental. We are still waiting on our colleagues in the 
Senate to act on this legislation.
  Is that the answer that my colleagues want to give a family who just 
lost everything in a natural disaster or to their community who just 
lost its infrastructure to a disaster. What happens when this money is 
needed and Congress has recessed during the election year and is back 
home campaigning in October or November? How long will it take for 
Congress to come back into session and enact a supplemental?
  Now, many of my fellow fiscally responsible colleagues will point out 
this is emergency spending and does not have offsets. That is true, it 
is. However, let us talk about the cost of supplementals. If we do not 
do this in the regular order and do it in emergency supplemental, we 
are likely to have a much larger price tag than the $2.6 billion that 
we are asking to refill this account. In other words, pay up now or pay 
a lot more later when we come back to do the emergency supplemental.
  The question is very simple. Are we going to admit that this money 
will be spent in the regular order of the appropriations process and 
provide the funding needed to meet ongoing emergency situations that we 
know are going to occur, or are we going to continue to play the 
budgetary games and pretend that we are not going to spend this money? 
If we choose the latter, we are fooling ourselves.
  I ask each of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this question: Do they 
want to tempt fate? We are going to have floods, fires, we have got 
fires in eight States going on right now, hurricanes and winter storms. 
Do my colleagues want to go home after a natural disaster hits and tell 
their people that help is on the way, or do they want to tell them they 
decided to play budget games with our future and did not provide FEMA 
with adequate resources?
  I urge my colleagues to do what is right for their constituents. I 
urge the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to not insist upon his 
point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) 
for bringing up this issue because the American public needs to be 
informed on how we are operating.
  What the gentleman from Florida is really saying is we are playing a 
smoke and mirrors game as far as emergency funding in this country, and 
that, in fact, we have spent more than $2.7 billion each of the last 5 
years on emergency, yet we fail to plan for the rainy days for the 
constituencies that we have in this country and for the emergencies 
that they face. His point is a good one. We should, in fact, be 
budgeting within the 302(b)s and within the budget of this Congress.
  Now, let us talk about why it is not. The reason it is not in there 
is because when we are all said, done, and through this year, we will 
reach back into year 2000 money and pay for emergency spending and not 
have to account for it. Until we get new updates, what we will really 
be taking that money from is Medicare. That money will come from 
Medicare.
  So I want to commend the gentleman from Florida. I think his point is 
right on. We need to be budgeting as a part of the budget process, and 
we need to be appropriating yearly this amount of money. It comes with 
being part of the fiscal discipline and the budgetary process that is 
open and honest. This one is not.
  What we are going to do with FEMA and how we are going to fund it to 
you, we all know we will fund it, the question is will we fund it 
honestly or will we reach back and claim the surplus last year and then 
steal the money, not tell the American public that the money that is 
going to be spent in fiscal 2001 is actually their 2000 that we, at one 
time, called a surplus.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have any additional speakers at this point in 
time, so by way of closing, I would just like to thank the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for his statement. He is right. He and I 
have worked together on budgetary honesty, fiscal responsibility, and I 
think that most of the people of this Nation want their government to 
perform certain functions. But they also want their government to be 
honest and make sure that we understand that those functions are going 
to be paid for so that we do not have to come back later with smoke and 
mirrors or we do not have to borrow money to fund those particular 
functions.
  This is a function that this Federal Government will perform. When a 
disaster hits, whether it be a hurricane or a fire or a winter storm or 
a tornado, those natural disaster events occur all over this country 
every year, the Federal Government, through FEMA, will step up to 
assist those local communities and those families that have been 
affected.
  The 5-year average cost of that assistance is $2.9 billion, $2.9 
billion, Mr. Chairman. We have appropriated about 10 percent of that 
money in this bill. I think that it is not being honest with the public 
in terms of doing our budget. We all know that later on we will come 
back and do this through a supplemental emergency appropriation. At 
that point in time, it is likely to cost us a lot more money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do reserve the point of order. I just wanted to 
explain that

[[Page 11749]]

both of these gentleman are right. We should appropriate these funds 
through the proper, through the normal appropriations process, and we 
do need to have funds in the pipeline available. The reason that we did 
not appropriate additional emergency funds in this bill is because 
there are currently $2 billion in the pipeline. The money is there. It 
is available. If this year continues to proceed as it has, those funds 
will be available through the fall into the spring. Will we do another 
emergency supplemental in the spring? I would suspect we will. We seem 
to do one every year. But the fact of the matter is we did not 
appropriate additional funds because we have money in the pipeline to 
deal with an emergency.
  So that basically is the reason that I would reserve the point of 
order.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just make one final point. If in fact we need 
$2.9 billion and there is $2 billion in the pipeline, then $900 million 
out of this appropriation bill should have been set aside, appropriated 
for that purpose, and it was not. It was not because we know we can 
reach back. It is easier to spend your money, Mr. Taxpayer, Mrs. 
Taxpayer, than it is to not spend it. That is why, in fact, it is not.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 30 seconds 
of the time that I have yielded back.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will reclaim 30 seconds for each side.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
who I think is one of the outstanding Members of this body and does a 
great job as chairman. I would like to say that the $1.7 billion that 
is in the pipeline now for FEMA, we have talked to FEMA about that. 
They expect that that will probably last through the end of the fiscal 
year and maybe through the end of the calendar year. But they expect 
soon after the end of this calendar year that they would be very 
nervous if we did not fill this pipeline again.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to highlight one of the most 
egregious problems in this severely deficient VA-HUD appropriations 
bill.
  Earlier today, my good friend Mr. Boyd, offered an amendment to 
increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency by $2.7 
billion dollars, and match the President's budget request for this 
agency.
  Incredibly, when our Nation is facing potentially one of the worst 
hurricane seasons ever to be recorded, the majority party instead 
proposes to cut funding for FEMA, the agency that responds to such 
disasters.
  For those Members whose memories are short, let me remind them that 
in my state last year, nearly 60 people lost their lives and more than 
$6 billion dollars in damage occurred in the space of a month, due to 
hurricanes.
  My state is still suffering from the after effects of Hurricanes 
Dennis, Floyd and Irene, and we are still working to get emergency 
assistance from Congress.
  The other side says: let's not have money in the pipeline, ready to 
come to aid of any part of America that suffers a disaster.
  Instead, they say, we'll just take care of it in a supplemental, even 
though it may mean a delay of months before the assistance can be 
delivered.
  Victims of Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina still reside in 
temporary housing, and it grieves me to think they could be hit by 
another hurricane before they have an opportunity to finally leave 
their current shelters.
  The striking down of the Boyd amendment calls into question certain 
priorities being set by the other side.
  Do we want to have the funds available when disaster strikes, or do 
we want to make sure we have enough money to give a $1 trillion dollar 
tax cut?
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000 
(House Report 106-683). This amendment would provide new budget 
authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under 
section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of 
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 
that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary 
budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of 
such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) would 
increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. 
Because of the attending emergency designation, the amendment 
automatically occasions an increase in the section 302(a) allocation to 
the Committee on Appropriations, but it does not occasion an automatic 
increase in the section 302(b) suballocation for the pending bill.
  As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is, therefore, sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the foregoing 
     amounts are designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that on page 67, 
lines 4 through 14 constitute legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair in that regard.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the Chair finds 
that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            disaster assistance direct loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,295,000, as authorized by 
     section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act: 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 $19,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $420,000.

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the 
     per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for 
     senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of 
     attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at 
     meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness; 
     transportation in connection with the continuity of 
     Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner 
     as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10 
     U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, $190,000,000.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, on May 12, 1998, 17-month-old Daniel 
Keysar of Chicago, Illinois was strangled to death when a portable crib 
at a day care center collapsed on his throat. Just 3 months after that, 
10-month-old William Curan of Fair Haven, New Jersey suffered the same 
fate. At least 13 children have died in these types of portable cribs.
  These are tragic deaths, Mr. Chairman, causing inexpressible sorrow 
to the parents. They did not have to happen. The portable cribs in 
which these

[[Page 11750]]

infants died had been recalled 5 years earlier, but nobody knew. 
Despite efforts of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to notify the 
public of the dangers posed by these cribs, over 1.2 million may still 
be in use today.
  Mr. Chairman, the Consumer Product Safety Commission handles recalls 
of defective products and would make information about these recalls 
more accessible to the public. Specifically, we are seeking to 
establish a comprehensive Consumer Product Safety Commission listing 
all of the children's products subject to recall or corrective action 
over the last 15 years. It would strengthen the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission's ability to notify consumers of truly dangerous products 
and would enable the CPSC to monitor the effectiveness of product 
recalls.

                              {time}  1400

  Let us make sure that no other child dies as a result of a product 
that has been recalled and the public was not made aware.
  Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's 
concerns; and I think it might be possible to find a solution in the 
conference, and I will certainly bring the gentleman's concern to the 
attention of the conferees.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I also share the gentleman's concerns. We can certainly 
try to address this issue in the conference with the other body, and I 
appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. It is particularly 
poignant, and it certainly does need to be addressed; and I hope we can 
address it in conference. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our 
attention.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) designate 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to strike the last word?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by extending 
congratulations to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), 
for their fine work under challenging circumstances. I would also like 
to extend congratulations to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease), 
chairing this very, very important measure.
  I rise, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rogan), who shares representing Pasadena, California, to bring to the 
attention of my friend, the gentleman from Syracuse, New York, some 
concerns I have about efforts in the other body to transfer away from 
Pasadena's Jet Propulsion Laboratory some of its important functions. I 
believe these efforts are unjustified and that they would hinder the 
ability of NASA to carry out its very important scientific mission.
  As the gentleman knows, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the lead 
U.S. center for unmanned exploration of the solar system. JPL has led 
the world in exploring the solar system with robotics spacecraft by 
visiting all known planets except Pluto. Over the last several years, 
JPL has saved taxpayer money by turning to outside vendors, wherever 
appropriate, and reducing its workforce by almost 30 percent from its 
1992 high.
  In fiscal year 2000, for example, 41 percent of JPL's 
Telecommunication and Mission Operations Directorate is already 
contracted out to outside vendors for routine services. So they have 
demonstrated a very clear and strong commitment at JPL to contract out 
whenever possible.
  While JPL contracts out routine services where appropriate, many 
functions are not routine and cannot be properly performed by outside 
vendors. Space communications, for example, Mr. Chairman, requires 
highly specialized capabilities. To accomplish this mission, JPL 
developed the Deep Space Network, a highly advanced system of powerful 
antennae designed to communicate with our planetary missions. The DSN 
is more than just a communications device, however. It is an incredibly 
powerful scientific instrument used in many radio-astronomy 
experiments.
  Last year, Congress asked NASA to study the idea of transferring all 
of JPL's Telecommunication and Mission Operations Directorate to a 
private contractor under the Consolidated Space Operations Contract, 
also known as CSOC. This would include the operations of the entire 
deep space network as well as the flight operations of current and 
future missions, including Galileo, Cassini, Ulysses, and Voyager. NASA 
conducted the study and, in a letter to Congress, recommended against 
such a transfer because the speculative savings were based on erroneous 
assumptions and such an action would introduce an extreme amount of 
risk in the mission operations.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague who chairs the 
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who is very supportive of this 
effort, I would like to say that we strongly agree, as I know my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), does, with this 
report that has come out. It has come to my attention that our friends 
in the other body may be seeking to direct NASA to transfer these 
functions to the CSOC contract despite the findings that came out in 
NASA's report. This action would be devastating to NASA's space 
exploration program as well as to the men and women who serve this 
Nation at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) and his fellow House conferees strongly oppose any attempt to 
cripple NASA's planetary exploration program by transferring essential 
aspects of JPL to an outside contractor.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his distinguished service on the Committee on Rules. I 
want to thank him for bringing this to our attention, as well as the 
other gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), who is a fighter and an 
advocate for JPL.
  My goal has always been to invest the resources of the Nation wisely. 
While this means getting the most out of every dollar we spend, it does 
not mean being penny-wise and pound-foolish. There is no other 
organization in the world that possesses the knowledge and the 
capabilities of JPL for deep space exploration. We must fully utilize 
the talents of the men and women of JPL in order to succeed.
  The recent difficulties in the Mars program have taught us all the 
dangers of dividing important capabilities between lab and outside 
contractors. I wish to assure the gentleman that I will not accept any 
proposal to transfer these functions away from JPL.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for 
his very supportive comments and appreciate his commitment to this 
extremely important program and also his kind words not only about the 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory but about my friend, the gentleman from 
Pasadena, California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROGAN. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and 
neighbor to the east, the distinguished chairman of our Committee on 
Rules, for yielding to me and also for his incredible leadership on 
this particular area.
  I also want to express, on behalf of all of the employees and 
families at JPL, our deep appreciation to the gentleman from New York, 
our distinguished subcommittee chairman, for helping us in this 
particular area.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dreier was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)

[[Page 11751]]


  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rogan).
  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, what I just wanted to share with my 
colleagues is that a visit to JPL is an incredible experience. When one 
goes there, one sees not only the incredible benefits they have made 
with respect to space exploration but what JPL has done for our 
national economy with the spin-off technology that has come out of 
there, from robotics surgery, to breast cancer research, data 
compression, laser technology, global communications, and the list goes 
on and on.
  To contract this out now would have a devastating effect not just on 
JPL but upon our technology, because we cannot contract out the 
cumulative knowledge and experience of these people, these incredibly 
dedicated men and women.
  So, once again, I want to urge the subcommittee Chairman, in his 
dealings with the other body, to do as the Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules has suggested. Let us keep this where the knowledge is founded, 
and in doing so we help not just our Nation but our economy, as well as 
continuing to get the incredible advancements we have had in space 
exploration.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my 
friend for his contribution and his strong commitment to addressing 
this very, very important national need.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), also a fellow New York Yankee 
fan, to engage in a colloquy with me.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and my neighbor, 
and I just want to say that the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), does great work for all of this 
Nation, and we New Yorkers are particularly proud of the work that he 
does.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman, with concerns I have regarding an 
important issue that affects my region of the country but, sadly, I 
think, a growing part of the Nation is being affected as well, and it 
is certainly the greatest environmental challenge for the Adirondack 
Mountains of New York, and that is the issue of acid rain.
  The Members of the New York congressional delegation, in particular, 
my Adirondack neighbor to the north, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh), as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), have been very aggressive in combating the toxic rain 
that is falling on our region and killing our lakes and forests. 
Specifically, I would like to address three acid rain monitoring 
programs at the EPA that I fear are currently in danger of being 
dismantled.
  First, earlier this year, EPA announced a decision to discontinue 
funding for the Mountain Acid Deposition Project, MADPRO, under its 
Office of Research and Development. This program is doing important 
work in monitoring cloud water chemistry and quantifying the 
debilitating effects of acid rain on our region.
  Operating since 1994, the MADPRO cloud monitoring program has located 
one of its three monitoring sites at Whiteface Mountain, in the heart 
of the Adirondack Park, I know a place near and dear to the chairman's 
heart. Thankfully, under pressure from many of us, EPA this month 
reversed its earlier decision to discontinue funding. However, I remain 
concerned about the long-term commitment of the EPA to this important 
initiative.
  Secondly, I want to express continued concern for the Clean Air 
Status and Trends Network, CASTNet. In 1997, there was concern that 
CASTNet was at risk of being defunded; and since that time, Congress 
has set a floor for the funding of that program.
  Lastly, I am concerned about important Temporally Integrated 
Monitoring of Ecosystems/Long-Term Monitoring Network, TIME/LTM, which 
measures water chemistry in lakes and streams throughout the 
Adirondacks and Appalachian Mountains. TIME/LTM is the only long-term 
network which helps us determine whether past emission controls are 
having their intended effect on the environment.
  TIME/LTM was initially funded at $2.4 million in 1992, but was cut to 
$1.1 million in 1995 and received only $900,000 last year. Mr. 
Chairman, I believe that the dwindling budget for TIME/LTM and EPA's 
attempts earlier this year to cut funding for cloud water monitoring 
stations raises serious concerns about EPA's commitment to all three of 
these important long-term acid rain monitoring programs.
  I would like to make the point that without the data showing the 
ecological impact in the field, we cannot effectively seek solutions to 
curbing acid rain in the future. I believe that the EPA has clearly 
been willing to halt funding for CASTNet and MADPRO over the past 5 
years, and it easily justifies a funding floor for all three of these 
programs.
  As my colleague from New York knows, acid rain is a cancer that is 
eating at the ecosystem of the Adirondack region as well as other 
areas, stunting our forests and rendering many of our lakes and streams 
lifeless. So I ask the distinguished Chairman to affirm his commitment 
to the funding of these programs and ask his help in developing 
language to ensure the continuation of these critical acid rain 
monitoring programs.
  Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his strong advocacy for this critical ecosystem in upstate New 
York. As a Member who has worked closely with him on a number of 
issues, I understand the importance of the acid rain programs not only 
to the Adirondacks but to the entire Eastern Seaboard.
  As the gentleman knows, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent 
Agencies has consistently supported funding for acid rain monitoring 
programs and would agree that a funding floor may be appropriate to 
ensure they can continue to operate in the long term. I would most 
certainly work with my colleague from New York to develop language that 
ensures the continued funding of these important environmental 
programs.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the Chairman again for his commitment to fighting acid rain.
  It is important to note at this time, Mr. Chairman, a recent GAO 
report, which I requested, revealed that half of the lakes in the 
Adirondacks have shown increases in nitrogen levels since the Clean Air 
Act Amendments were signed into law in 1990. These deposits are at 
levels far higher than EPA's own worst-case scenario estimates, and we 
are clearly not doing enough.
  I believe that the current evidence of the worsening of the acid rain 
problem shows that this is a time to be strengthening the Federal 
Government's commitment to acid rain programs, not retracting it; and I 
once again thank the Chairman for his commitment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              emergency management planning and assistance


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 
     1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 
     1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended 
     (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
     405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $267,000,000. 
     And in addition, $5,500,000 to be derived by transfer from 
     the ``Disaster relief'' account.

                radiological emergency preparedness fund

       The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2001, as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-74, shall not be less than 100 
     percent of the amounts anticipated by the agency necessary 
     for its radiological emergency preparedness program for the 
     next fiscal year.

[[Page 11752]]

     The methodology for assessment and collection of fees shall 
     be fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of providing 
     such services, including administrative costs of collecting 
     such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section shall be 
     deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and will 
     become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2001, 
     and remain available until expended.

                   emergency food and shelter program

       To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant 
     to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $110,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That total 
     administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\ percent of the 
     total appropriation.

                      flood map modernization fund


                          (transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, $30,000,000 to be 
     derived by transfer from the ``Disaster relief'' account, and 
     such additional sums as may be received under 1360(g) or 
     provided by State or local governments or other political 
     subdivisions for cost-shared mapping activities under section 
     1360(f )(2), to remain available until expended.

                     national flood insurance fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended, 
     not to exceed $25,736,000 for salaries and expenses 
     associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance 
     operations, and not to exceed $77,307,000 for flood 
     mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under 
     section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act, which 
     amount shall be available for transfer to the National Flood 
     Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2002. In fiscal year 
     2001, no funds in excess of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating 
     expenses; (2) $455,627,000 for agents' commissions and taxes; 
     and (3) $40,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall 
     be available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without 
     prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations.
       Section 1309(a)(2) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), as amended by Public Law 104-
     208, is further amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting 
     ``2001''.
       The first sentence of section 1376(c) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)), is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2001''.

                     national flood mitigation fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding sections 1366(b)(3)(B)-(C) and 1366(f ) of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 
     $20,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2002, for 
     activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to 
     structures pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall 
     be derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund.

                    General Services Administration


                federal consumer information center fund

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Consumer Information 
     Center, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $7,122,000, to be deposited into the Federal Consumer 
     Information Center Fund: Provided, That the appropriations, 
     revenues, and collections deposited into the Fund shall be 
     available for necessary expenses of Federal Consumer 
     Information Center activities in the aggregate amount of 
     $12,000,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections 
     accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2001 in excess of 
     $12,000,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be 
     available for expenditure except as authorized in 
     appropriations Acts.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

                           human space flight

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of human space flight research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, and services; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including revitalization and modification of 
     facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities, facility planning and design, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications 
     activities including operations, production, and services; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $5,499,900,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002.


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Cummings

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that has been 
designated No. 33.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Cummings:
       Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
       Page 73, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,800,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their support. I have offered this amendment to increase 
funding for the NASA University Research Centers, better known as URCs, 
at 14 minority institutions by $2.8 million.
  URCs are funded through NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology 
Division. The amendment is offset by deducting the same amount from the 
Human Space Flight account.

                              {time}  1415

  The URC program has expanded the Nation's base for aerospace 
research, increased participation by faculty and students at 
historically black colleges and universities and other minority 
universities in mainstream research, and increased the production of 
disadvantaged students with advanced degrees in NASA-related fields.
  Furthermore, each research unit has developed a broad-based 
competitive research capability in areas related to NASA's strategic 
enterprises while contributing to support the Agency's scientific and 
technical human resource requirements.
  Under this amendment, each URC would be eligible to receive up to 
$1.2 million per year, an increase of $200,000, to support activities 
and operations in the subaccounts from which they are funded. I hope 
the chair and the ranking member will work with me to ensure that this 
is stated in any report language.
  This is a great investment in our students, and I urge support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. However, I am not in opposition.
  We have considered this and we have discussed this with the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) the ranking member. We believe this 
is a friendly amendment, it is a proper use of funds, and we think it 
is a good allocation of funds. For that reason, I have no objection to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman and have no 
objection. I compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for 
bringing it up.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Roemer

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

       Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,100,000,000) (increased by 
     $300,000,000)''.
       Page 73, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $290,000,000) (increased by 
     $20,000,000) (increased by $6,000,000) (increased by 
     $49,000,000)''.
       Page 77, line 1, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $405,000,000)''.
       Page 77, line 22, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $62,000,000)''.
       Page 78, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $34,700,000)''.
       Page 78, line 21, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,900,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,

[[Page 11753]]

2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes 
additional time to both sides evenly divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if I could 
inquire of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), it is our 
understanding that he has several other amendments that have time 
allocated for them; and if he would withhold from offering those 
amendments, and if my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) who 
was a part of this agreement would agree, we could provide the 
additional 10 minutes to this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, an additional 10 minutes per side to this 
amendment?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) for clarification.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would indulge, I do not know 
how complicated this might be to do, if it could be done in the 
Committee of the Whole or done in the whole House. But if such an 
agreement could be worked out easily, I would agree to that, give the 
gentleman another 10 minutes, and save us 20 minutes on the other two 
amendments.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I understand it, 
there would then be provided a total of 30 minutes in the aggregate, 15 
minutes a side, on this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it would be a total of 20 minutes, with 
10 minutes on each side for this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I understood it to be a total of 30 
minutes, 15 minutes per side.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we discussed this very clearly. It would 
be a total of 20 minutes on this amendment No. 48, 10 minutes to a side 
on that; on the other two amendments the gentleman would be able to 
speak for 2 minutes just to talk about the amendment and then to 
withdraw them and not to exercise a point of order with regard to them.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
how about I would agree to the 10 minutes per side on this amendment 
and then I have 4 minutes to discuss my two amendments in the next 
title and withdraw the amendments?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that. If the 
gentlemen are all in agreement, I would be happy to agree to that.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) will have 10 minutes and a Member opposed will have 10 minutes 
on this amendment.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their 
gracious opportunity to work through this amendment, which oftentimes 
is given an hour or 2 hours of debate.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $2.1 billion and thereby 
eliminate the Space Station, transfer $508 million to the National 
Science Foundation, and transfer another $365 million back into NASA, 
thereby leaving over $1 billion for debt reduction, probably the 
highest priority for the American people right now to keep this economy 
going and provide low interest rates and low mortgage payments.
  For NASA, Mr. Chairman, this is the best of times and the worst of 
times. It is the best of times in that we are succeeding in many 
endeavors: the Hubell returning great pictures from space, the 
Pathfinder landing on Mars and exciting the American people with new 
knowledge, and John Glenn saying our senior citizens going into space 
can teach us every bit as much as a 25-year-old endeavoring into space. 
But they are also the worst of times, with a Space Station eating up 
$2.1 billion and being $80 billion over budget.
  Now, according to this graph, Mr. Chairman, the initial cost of the 
Space Station was $8 billion. It is now $100 billion and growing. The 
initial missions for the Space Station, we had eight. Now we are down 
to one. I do not think this is a good investment of the taxpayers' 
money.
  Now, Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, was just up here 
testifying the other day and told Congress that the best investment we 
could make as a Congress, as a people, is to invest in research and 
development and science so that we stay on the cutting edge and keep 
jobs in America and export products abroad.
  This amendment moves $508 million into the National Science 
Foundation to invest in research and development, to invest in the 
American workers, to invest in the cutting edge, and to invest in 
American jobs.
  I would conclude so that I could have more speakers have the 
opportunity to discuss this amendment by saying this: Our dream has 
expanded beyond the Space Station, outside of the universe with the 
Hubell pictures and Mars; and now with the Russians and MIR, their 
space station is now being paid for by wealthy Americans paying $20 
million to travel to MIR.
  Is that the future of the American Space Station, an expensive 
amusement park for the wealthy, when it can do little else?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would delete funding for the 
International Space Station and reallocate the funds to various worthy 
programs in other portions of the bill and designate a portion of the 
savings for debt reduction.
  While I may agree with the plea for additional funds in some of the 
programs proposed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), I must 
oppose the amendment.
  Terminating the Space Station would end what could be the most 
significant research and development laboratory in history and cause 
upheaval in the Shuttle program for years into the future, effectively 
terminating NASA's Human Space Flight program. It would also render 
useless over a half million pounds of hardware, much of which is 
already in space.
  Mr. Chairman, there are broad and important applications for the 
Space Station, not the least of which is that there will be 
schoolchildren all over the world who not only will be able to watch 
with great interest the progress, but they will see the cooperation 
that the nations of the world have formed to launch this expression of 
man's hope for the future.
  The intrinsic value of the inspiration that it will provide to our 
young people is incalculable. We have children in my school district in 
Syracuse who will be providing an experiment that will go on the Space 
Station. They will be watching it, monitoring it, using the Internet to 
conduct their research, and working with colleges and scientists 
throughout the world. These young people are the people we need to get 
involved in space and mathematics. The Space Station will help us to do 
that.
  In addition, termination of the contracts for the Space Station at 
this time would subject NASA to liability of about $750 million. And 
the amendment makes no provision for these costs. I believe it is 
important for everyone to understand where we stand today with regard 
to the Space Station.
  The prime contractor has completed nearly 90 percent of its 
development work. U.S. flight hardware for missions through flight 12A 
is at the launch site at the Kennedy Space Center awaiting either final 
testing or launch for assembly.
  In addition to Russia, the second largest infrastructure provider, 
the other international partners remain committed to the station 
program, having spent over $5 billion to date.

[[Page 11754]]

  The Russian Service Module is on schedule for a summer launch. This 
element will allow a permanent crew to be placed in orbit later this 
year.
  NASA is actively encouraging commercial participation in the station 
program, having just concluded a major multimedia collaboration.
  Mr. Chairman, within one year, the station will be inhabited by three 
international crew members. In five years, the station will be complete 
and serving as an outpost for humans to develop, use, and explore the 
space frontier. We have come far, and soon the station research will be 
underway. Now is not the time to stop this incredibly important 
program.
  I ask all Members to oppose the Roemer amendment
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a cosponsor of the bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me the time. I will try to save a little time.
  Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is a failure and it is 
a misuse of taxpayer money. In 1983, Ronald Reagan first presented the 
idea of the Space Station and NASA predicted the cost would be $8 
billion.
  Between 1985 and 1993, we spent $11.4 billion on this project and 
never sent anything to orbit. So we started over and, voila, we had the 
International Space Station.
  In 1993, NASA told us that the station would cost $17.4 billion to 
build, would be completed in the year 2002, and would be operational 
for 10 years. They told us the total operational costs from 
construction to decommissioning would be $72.3 billion. We were 
presented with a new program that would cost twice as much and that 
would last one-third as long.
  And this was a good idea?
  As my colleagues can see from my chart, since 1993 we have spent more 
than $2 billion every year. With funding provided in this bill, we will 
have spent $25.4 billion since 1995. Construction is 4 years behind 
schedule and is expected to cost the U.S. around $26 billion. That is 
50 percent above the original quote.
  The United States is expected to pay 74 percent of construction 
costs. If this Station is completed and if it becomes operational, the 
United States is scheduled to pay 76 percent of operational costs. And 
we call that an International Space Station?
  The United States is the only country expected to make cash payments 
for this Station's operating expenses. The other countries will 
reimburse through in-kind contributions.

                              {time}  1430

  Where is the international commitment? Vote for this amendment. It 
restores necessary funding to the National Science Foundation; it 
boosts successful NASA programs; and it reduces the national debt.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with an amendment 
to kill the International Space Station and once again I rise in the 
strongest possible opposition to that amendment.
  Last year, I said that the time for debate on this issue had passed. 
It was true then, and it is certainly true today. It is even more true 
today. All of these arguments that are being advanced against the 
International Space Station were applicable a long time ago. We have 
now a functional Space Station in Earth's orbit. We have a team of 
astronauts who have just returned from a resupply, repair, and reboost 
mission to that station and by the end of this summer, the launch of 
the long-awaited Russian service module will allow the station to be 
inhabited by humans.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana would throw all of that 
away, flushing literally tens of billions of dollars down the drain, 
money invested by the United States and also money invested by our 
international partners, yes, by Russia, Canada, Japan, Italy, and 
France to name just a few. Pulling out of the joint effort at this 
stage is, in my judgment, irresponsible.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of recent votes on this issue. I 
think from 1992 to date, a series of maybe eight or nine votes on this 
issue. In each instance, the body has expressed its solid support and 
increasing support for the International Space Station. There is simply 
not much else to say in this debate. It has all been said so many times 
before during those years.
  But let us be honest. This amendment is not really about anything 
else other than killing the Space Station, however attractive some of 
the accounts are to where the money is spent. This debate has been 
decided in the past. I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we can do better by our budget 
and by our children by investing the Space Station money in more 
worthy, reliable programs, both at NASA and in other areas of the 
science budget as well as reducing our national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, what could we do with $2.1 billion? We could fund the 
National Institutes of Health for 16 years. We could provide low-income 
heating assistance for thousands of families; or fund child 
immunization programs nationwide. We could also clean up our Superfund 
sites, fund drug prevention programs, provide Head Start to our 
children in need, pay our debt to the United Nations, and provide a tax 
cut for working families. These are investments we should be making for 
our children and for their future. I strongly believe that the Space 
Station is a case of misplaced priorities. With the many needs here on 
Earth, the Space Station is just too expensive. We need to shore up our 
Social Security system and protect Medicare and Medicaid. This 
amendment must be passed.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, 9 years we have been at this. The gentleman from West 
Virginia, the ranking member, referred to the number of votes that we 
have had before. When we add in the authorizing committee battles that 
we have had over the Space Station issue and now this battle as well, 
it seems like we have voted hundreds of times on this amendment. We 
need to give our support to the good NASA employees that have given 
their careers to building the Space Station program. This is not the 
time to pull the rug out from under this program. As we speak, the 
prime contractor is 90 percent through developing the hardware. As we 
speak, there are 12 International Space Station payloads already at the 
Kennedy launch site. Just last month, the shuttle dropped off 2,000 
pounds of supplies for the first crew.
  We have got numerous experiments and other scientific projects that 
will be carried aboard the Space Station project as well. It is up 
there. We need to give our support to this program.
  If there ever was a time to discuss this issue, it was years and 
years ago. The gentleman from Indiana is wrong now. He was wrong then. 
We have been at this for 9 years. Give it a rest.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) in support of my bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
As both the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske) mentioned, the original estimate on the cost for this 
Space Station was $8 billion in 1984. The old Washington con game or 
shell game is at work here again, drastically low-balling the original 
estimate of cost and then spreading the funding around to as many 
congressional districts as possible to try to get political support.
  Seven years after the start of this in 1991, an extraordinary 
coalition of 14 leading scientific groups came out strongly against the 
Space Station because of the tremendous drain on funding from other 
worthwhile scientific

[[Page 11755]]

projects. Robert L. Park, executive director of the American Physical 
Society, has estimated the full cost to build and equip the station to 
be $118 billion and said, ``If you include operating costs over what 
NASA claims will be a 30-year life, it comes to an S&L-bailout-sized 
$180 billion.''
  This, Mr. Chairman, is going to go down as probably the biggest 
boondoggle in the history of this Congress. I know this is probably a 
losing effort, but I admire the gentleman from Indiana's courage and 
perseverance; and I urge support for his amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on 
Science and a strong advocate of the Space Station program.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Of course I oppose 
this amendment. I have opposed it ever since the gentleman from Indiana 
has been in Congress. I hope I am opposing it for the next 10 years 
with him because he is a wonderful guy; he just has a lousy amendment.
  He is continuing that tradition even though the first segment of the 
International Space Station is already in orbit and operational and 
additional elements of the station are awaiting launch from Cape 
Kennedy. There are so many reasons. I will just say that we are here in 
the annual argument again. It has been argued before time and time 
again. It has never passed. I think if it should pass this station to 
go on to the next station that we would have every hotel and every 
eating establishment within 100 miles of here covered by school 
children and university people and people across the country that know 
that this is the future of America. We have to have a Space Station. We 
need it for many reasons: medical, all types of electronic fallout, 
national defense. You name it; we need it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend from Indiana's 
amendment. It is time for this Congress to finally realize that 
previous Congresses have simply made a bad investment decision. But let 
me preface my remarks by saying that there is no bigger cheerleader for 
NASA at the space program in this Congress than myself who has the 
privilege of representing the hometown area of Deke Slaton, one of the 
original Mercury astronauts, and one of the current Shuttle astronauts, 
Mark Lee. But what started out as an $8 billion commitment from the 
American taxpayer to the international space station has now ballooned 
to over $100 billion and the cost is increasing. It is time for this 
Congress to at least take action to save the American taxpayer 
additional billions of dollars.
  I like what the Roemer amendment does by dedicating a large portion 
of the savings to national debt reduction which we know is going to pay 
back economic dividends to the American people as well as makes a 
healthy investment in the National Science Foundation. I do not think 
it is too bold to predict that over the next couple of decades, we are 
probably going to see more scientific discoveries than we have seen in 
the last 300 years.
  This Congress has an obligation as the representatives of this 
democracy to invest heavily in science so that we make these 
breakthroughs first rather then a dictatorial power who might see these 
scientific discoveries for nefarious purposes. That's why increased 
support for the National Science Foundation is so important.
  I, like many Americans, am very supportive of NASA's efforts to 
explore the universe and expand our knowledge of space, but I do not 
support such efforts at any price. What must be questioned is the 
tremendous cost that the American taxpayers are facing today to 
perpetuate a space station that many in the scientific community 
believe has limited value. That is why I support canceling the 
International Space Station.
  The space program has exceeded all spending predictions and failed to 
achieve its intended mission. In 1993, NASA said construction of the 
space station would be finished in June 2002 and the entire program 
would cost $72.3 billion. Recent estimates, however, place the cost at 
nearly $100 billion and we are still years away from completion. In 
fact, NASA had to launch a shuttle mission last month to apply boosters 
to the station because it was falling from its orbit by 1.5 miles each 
week.
  Additional problems have occurred recently, such as those in 
Huntsville, Alabama, where two parts of the space station, valued at 
$750,000 were mistakenly discarded in a land fill. These tanks were 
never found and had to be replaced at an additional expense.
  Yet, knowing that the space station has become a budgetary black 
hole, Congress continues to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars year 
after year to fund such an expensive program.
  How can we justify the space station when our country is being forced 
to make tough decisions about how to fund Social Security for seniors, 
how to ensure that our children have a quality education system, how to 
shore up Medicare, and how to reduce our $5.7 trillion national debt? 
We must stop this annual waste of money and better prioritize our 
investment decisions.
  It is essential that we continue to scrutinize the projects upon 
which our Government spends taxpayer money and I commend my colleagues 
who support this amendment and continue to speak out against the 
Budgetary Black Hole known as the International Space Station.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to 
terminate this failed program and do what is right for our citizens.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing 
me to oppose the Roemer amendment one more time. I sometimes think like 
Yogi Berra that it is deja vu all over again. Or maybe like the movie 
Ground Hog Day, every year we keep experiencing the same thing.
  I join my colleague from Texas in saying that the gentleman from 
Indiana is a great person with a bad amendment. Again, the 
International Space Station represents the future of our space 
exploration. It will be a high-tech laboratory with innovations. It 
will have countless applications to the daily lives of Americans. It 
represents an era of international cooperation from which everyone will 
benefit.
  If Congress does undermine the funding for the International Space 
Station by passing this amendment, it will represent a major reversal 
in the commitment made to the program's stability over the years. It 
will be a betrayal to our international partners. Among the criticisms 
are that the cost for the life cycle of the Space Station has 
dramatically risen over the years. In fact, the cost for the life cycle 
of the Space Station has gone up only 2 percent in the last 3 years. 
Critics have charged that the funding for the Space Station will push 
out smaller space exploration endeavors, like Mars Pathfinder and 
Hubbell. That is just simply not true. We will use this platform for 
those.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in my 6 years in Congress I have 
consistently voted to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging represented by the 
International Space Station. Because I have done so, I often have 
constituents in a surprised tone ask me how I can be against space-
based research. My answer is that I am not against space research. In 
fact, I am ardently for such science. Unfortunately, the International 
Space Station does not advance the scientific mission of NASA and 
actually threatens the scientific payoff the United States can expect 
from the agency.
  Evidence today shows that few non-NASA scientists believe the project 
has scientific value. And continuous cost overruns suck the air out of 
worthwhile programs, making it unlikely we will be able to duplicate 
the success of missions like the Pathfinder.
  Mr. Chairman, the pro space science vote is the no Space Station 
vote.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Roemer-Ganske-Woolsey-Duncan-Rivers-LoBiondo- Roukema-Kind-Camp-
Ramstad bipartisan amendment is strongly supported by the Taxpayers for 
Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, the Concord Coalition,

[[Page 11756]]

and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Ten leading scientific associations, 
including the American Physical Society, the Carnegie Institution, and 
the American Society of Cell Biologists also support it.
  I encourage bipartisan support to stop the Space Station and invest 
in the National Science Foundation and debt reduction.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, terminating the International Space Station would end 
what could be the most significant research and development laboratory 
in history and cause a complete upheaval of the shuttle program for 
years into the future, effectively terminating NASA's human space 
flight program.
  High-cost growth often cited as the reason to terminate the Space 
Station is simply not the case. The initial congressional budget 
projection for ISS from 1994 to 2000 was approximately $14.5 billion. 
During those years, actual expenditures have totalled $15.8 billion, 
reflecting a growth of less than 10 percent. Termination costs could 
total over $750 million. And the prime contractor has completed nearly 
90 percent of its development work. In addition, Russia and the other 
international partners remain committed to the ISS and have spent over 
$5 billion to date. Within 1 year, the ISS will be inhabited by three 
international crew members. In 5 years, the Space Station will be 
complete and serving as an outpost for humans to develop, use, and 
explore the space frontier.
  We have come so far and soon the ISS research will be under way. The 
last 2 decades have seen magnificent high-tech growth in this world. 
Imagine what this facility will do for the children and education in 
the next 2 decades and beyond. Vote no on this misguided amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
Roemer-Ganske-Woolsey-Duncan et al. amendment to H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.
  We cannot squander this historic opportunity to invest in America's 
future; if approved, this amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations 
measure risks doing just that.
  Despite the shortcomings of this bill, there are some commitments 
that have been secured and need to be preserved. Our ability to reach 
the stars is an important priority, which will ensure that America 
remains the preeminent country for space exploration.
  Although this measure is destined to be vetoed in its current form, I 
believe the $13.7 billion appropriation, $322 million (2 percent) less 
than requested by the administration, could have been even more 
generous.
  But the amendment offered to completely eliminate funding for the 
international space station would be entirely reckless and would 
abandon our commitment to the American people.
  Although many of us would have clearly preferred to vote on a bill 
that includes more funding for other NASA priorities, Veterans 
Administration and National Science Foundation programs, such increases 
should not offset the money appropriated for our international space 
station.
  The measure provides $2.1 billion for continued development of the 
international space station, and $3.2 billion for space shuttle 
operations. We need to devote additional personnel at NASA's Human 
Flight Centers to ensure that the high skill and staffing levels are in 
place to operate the Space Shuttle safely and to launch, as well as 
assemble the International Space Station.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud the Johnson Space Center and its many 
accomplishments, and I promise to remain a vocal supporter of NASA and 
its creative programs. NASA has had a brilliant 40 years, and I see no 
reason why it could not have another 40 successful years. It has made a 
tremendous impact on the business and residential communities of the 
18th Congressional District of Texas, and the rest of the nation.
  The reality is that we have a historic opportunity to continue paying 
down the debt while passing an appropriations measure that adequately 
meets the needs of those that have been left behind in the New Economy.
  In closing, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment and 
the bill so that we can get back to work on a common sense measure that 
invests in America's future, makes affordable housing a reality across 
America, and keeps our vital NASA program strong well into the 21st 
century.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The International Space Station represents a unique scientific 
opportunity to perform research. Research which will lead to 
innovations and breakthroughs that will improve the quality of life for 
all of us. NASA has already grown crystals aboard the Shuttle that have 
provided scientists with useful insights into the mechanisms of crystal 
growth. Information gained on crystal growth will make it easier and 
more predictable to develop specialized materials on Earth. During 
relatively short duration Shuttle missions scientists have gained a 
better understanding of underlying biological mechanisms that will help 
us understand balance and hearing in humans. Of particular interest has 
been research aboard the Shuttle which has given scientists a better 
understanding of the structure of a specific strain of the flu virus 
that kills 3,000 infants in the U.S. annually, providing pharmaceutical 
manufacturers key information needed to develop antibodies.
  Clearly, research aboard the Shuttle in the zero gravity environment 
of space has led to keen insights into various scientific phenomena. 
However, this is only a fraction of the scientific discoveries enabled 
by the Space Station. The Shuttle can only fly a handful of times per 
year and only a couple weeks at a time. On the other hand, the Space 
Station enables research to be conducted 365 days a year.
  Scientific discovery and technological development are the key 
drivers behind our prosperity. We must not turn our backs on the 
payoffs that research on the Space Station can provide to improve life 
on Earth for all of us. Because our children and grandchildren will 
benefit most from that research, I urge that the proposed amendment be 
rejected.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Mr. Roemer. After countless missed deadlines, technical 
glitches, cost overruns, and a lack of support from our so-called 
``partners,'' it's time we face facts; the International Space Station 
program must end.
  The original estimate for the first space station put the cost of 
such an endeavor at $8 billion dollars. Congress ended up spending 
$11.4 billion and what it got was a failed program that offered little 
hardware, and no launch. Since this program did not work, Congress 
needed a new way to waste taxpayer dollars. So in 1993 this new program 
was called the International Space Station.
  NASA recently estimated the cost of building this station through 
completion, whenever that will be, at well over $26 billion. This 
estimate does not even include the billions of dollars a year it will 
take to maintain the station after that. What's more, our so-called 
``partners,'' Japan, Canada, and 10 other countries, are only required 
to collectively spend $9 billion. It seems the partners of the 
International Space Station actually share little more than a name. 
Once again the United States is left holding the bag.
  On March 16, 2000, Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director, National 
Security and International Affairs Division of the Government 
Accounting Office gave testimony before the House Science Subcommittee 
on Space and Aeronautics saying Russia is still not complying with the 
space station's safety requirements. His testimony states the Russian 
Control and Service Modules have not met NASA guidelines to protect the 
station from orbiting debris, yet NASA said this risk was 
``acceptable.'' NASA is still reviewing other safety concerns including 
excessive noise levels and outright operational failure. Where billions 
of dollars are concerned and, more importantly, human life, is any risk 
acceptable? My greatest fear is that NASA is ignoring quality standards 
in a futile attempt to justify this albatross.
  It is for these reasons I fully support Mr. Roemer's amendment to the 
Veterans Administration-Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 
bill for FY 2001. This amendment transfers the $2.115 billion 
appropriated to the International Space Station and places it in the 
National Science Foundation and in other valuable NASA programs. 
Additional money will go towards paying down the national debt.
  Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. Congress has already dumped too much 
into this space station, to no benefit. I believe we should give 
America's taxpayers a break by canceling the International Space 
Station.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer 
amendment to H.R. 4635, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations for 
FY 2001 to terminate the International Space Station. As Co-Chair of 
the Congressional Aerospace Caucus, I strongly support continued 
funding for the International

[[Page 11757]]

Space Station (ISS). The Space Station is critical for NASA to maintain 
America's leadership in space exploration, research and technology. In 
addition, this international endeavor fosters peaceful relationships 
among 16 countries by collaborating on mutual goals for the benefit of 
humankind.
  The practical benefits to space exploration are countless. It is 
proven that for each tax dollar we spend in space, we receive a $9 
return here on Earth in new products, new technologies and improvements 
for people around the world. Research in the Space Station's unique 
orbital laboratory will lead to discoveries in medicine, materials and 
fundamental science. Space station research will build on proven 
medical research conducted on the Space Shuttle to benefit diseases 
such as cancer, osteoporosis and AIDS. Medical equipment technology 
developed for early astronauts are still paying off today. For example:
  NASA developed a ``cool suit'' for the Apollo missions,which is now 
helping to improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients.
  NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be programmed from 
outside the body.
  NASA developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density 
without penetrating the skin which are now being used by hospitals.
  NASA research has led to an implant for delivering insulin to 
diabetics that is only 3 inches across which provides more precise 
control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the daily burden 
of insulin.
  Second,the ISS enhances US economic competitiveness by providing an 
opportunity for the private sector to use the technologies and research 
applications of space. This will increase the number of high-tech jobs 
and economic opportunities available today and for future generations.
  Third, the Space Station serves as a virtual classroom for students 
of all levels and ages. Innovative programs have been designed that 
will allow students to actively participate in research on board the 
Station. Our commitment to long-term research and development will 
encourage today's youth to consider careers in science and technology, 
fields where American workers are desperately needed.
  With nearly 90 percent of the International Space Station development 
completed, we are only months away from having a permanent human 
presence in low orbit and beginning the research that holds so much 
promise for the global community. Ending progress on the ISS now would 
require NASA to scrap billions of dollars of hardware that has been 
designed and developed for the ISS. Furthermore, we would be throwing 
away years of international cooperation and ending the peacetime 
collaboration in history.
  I urge my colleagues to ensure that the United States remains at the 
forefront of space research. Vote NO on the Roemer amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Hulshof) to enter into a colloquy.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for yielding to me. As my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh) the chairman of the Subcommittee VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies knows, in a 6-hour time frame between May the 6 of 
this year and Sunday morning, May the 7, 15 inches of rain fell in 
parts of my district. As a result of some severe flash flooding, two 
lives were lost, over 200 of my constituents were left homeless and 
numerous businesses have suffered property damage.
  Recognizing the severity of these damages caused by the flooding, the 
President on May the 12 of this year designated three Missouri 
counties, Franklin County, Gasconade and Jefferson County as Federal 
disaster areas.
  Believing that a precedent had been set by Congress in their dealings 
with past disasters, the Mayor of the City of Washington, Missouri 
submitted to me a request for an appropriation that would permit their 
city to implement a flood buyout and relocation program.
  Though a specific line item was not used to secure relief for the 
victims of past floods, it is my understanding that a precedent was set 
by allowing money through the Housing and Urban Development's Community 
Development and Block Grants program to pay for buyouts, to pay for 
relocation and mitigation in communities in North Dakota, South Dakota, 
and Minnesota.
  While I certainly, Mr. Chairman, would prefer that more money be made 
available in the Community Development Block Grant program for the 
State of Missouri to pay for the buyout and relocation of businesses 
impacted by this flash flood, I do recognize the budgetary hardships 
that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has encountered in 
crafting this fiscal year 2001 bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I had considered offering an amendment to waive the 
Community Development Block Grant low- and moderate-income requirements 
for those areas affected by the major disaster that was the subject of 
this May 6 and 7 flood. However, I also recognize that the provisions 
of such a proposal would constitute legislating on an appropriations 
bill and would have been ruled out of order.
  Mr. Chairman, recognizing that at this point there is little that 
this body can do, I would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
should an opportunity present itself to help those families and 
businesses that were severely impacted for him to look for that and 
grasp that opportunity on behalf of those families and businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
for his willingness to work with me to address this very critical and 
serious situation.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof) for his hard work on behalf of his constituents who have been 
so severely impacted by these flash floods. The gentleman has been 
absolutely diligent about bringing this to the attention of the 
subcommittee, to protect his constituents and rightly so. Congress is 
working within an extremely tight budget again this year, and the 
subcommittee thanks the gentleman for his cooperation working within 
these restrictions.
  Accordingly, I intend to work in conference to find a reasonable 
solution to this problem.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy on another 
subject?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4635 includes bill language that 
would prevent EPA from finalizing or implementing changes to the 
Agency's TMDL program that are based on the August 23, 1999 proposed 
rule during fiscal year 2001. This limitation is consistent with my own 
position that, due to the overwhelming opposition from groups as 
diverse as the United States Conference of Mayors, Friends of the 
Earth, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the Clean 
Water Industry Coalition, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, the American Foreign Bureau Federation and the American 
Forest and Paper Association, EPA should withdraw its August 23, 1999 
TMDL proposals and go back to the drawing board.
  However, I also want to make sure that H.R. 4635 also is consistent 
with my position that State work on TMDLs continues as expeditiously as 
possible, in accordance with EPA's existing regulations, while work on 
a new proposal is underway.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
can be assured that the committee intends States to move forward as 
expeditiously as possible, with the development and implementation of 
TMDLs

[[Page 11758]]

under current regulatory authorities. This is one of the primary 
purposes of the $130 million increase in funding for State Clean Water 
programs under section 106 of the Clean Water Act.
  The committee expects States to use these resources in part to fill 
the data gaps identified by GAO in their March 2000 report on data 
quality and to develop and implement TMDLs that are scientifically and 
legally defensible.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, in addition, I would like to seek 
clarification of the committee's intent if EPA ignores my request and 
the requests of other Members of Congress, our Nation's mayors, major 
environmental groups, agricultural groups, forestry groups and industry 
groups and finalizes this rule within an effective date that occurs 
prior to the enactment of H.R. 4635.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walsh was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, some have 
suggested that if EPA's new TMDL rules go into effect, existing 
regulations will be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and 
the language of H.R. 4635 will not reinstate those existing 
regulations.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his advocacy. If EPA 
refuses to withdraw the TMDL rules and issues final rules with an 
effective date that will occur before enactment of this legislation, I 
will work with the Senate in conference to ensure that the TMDL 
regulation in effect today remain in place.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership, and it is pleasure to work in partnership with him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  science, aeronautics and technology

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, and services; maintenance; 
     construction of facilities including revitalization, and 
     modification of facilities, construction of new facilities 
     and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and 
     design, and acquisition or condemnation of real property, as 
     authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft control and 
     communications activities including operations, production, 
     and services; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $5,606,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.


                Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Mollohan

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

       Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Mollohan:
       Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $322,700,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, January 
20, 2000, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me express appreciation to my dear friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for his assistance 
in working on this amendment and working on NASA issues generally. The 
gentleman is a real champion for NASA funding and he has a passionate 
concern for the underfunding of some of the accounts that we are trying 
to address here today. I just want to give a special note of 
appreciation to him for his assistance.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would accomplish a simple goal: to 
bring NASA's long-reduced budget up to the President's requests. After 
years of repeated cuts the administration has proposed a modest 
increase for NASA, only 3.2 percent, but it is a modest increase and 
barely takes care of inflation. Indeed, the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) has done his best to fund NASA in this bill, and we 
express appreciation for him for those efforts.
  Let me briefly explain why I think there are some accounts that 
deserve funding. The so-called Living With a Star Initiative that would 
help us understand the Sun's behavior, extremely important, Mr. 
Chairman, when to expect sun flares, when to expect these abnormalities 
affect us here on Earth. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $16.5 
million to that end.
  Secondly, the bill before us completely eliminates funding for the 
space launch initiative, extremely important, including funding for 
advanced technology research on the next generation Space Shuttle, as 
well as ongoing work on two experimental vehicles, the X34 and the X37.
  My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would provide $260 million for this 
purpose, which represents $30 million less than the President's 
requests, but it at least gets significant amounts of money on those 
very important projects.
  Thirdly, my amendment would provide $39.1 million to the aviation 
system capacity program for a total of $49.2 million. This important 
ongoing program of research and development has the goal of improving 
air traffic control and reducing airport and aerospace congestion.
  Finally, my amendment provides $7 million for the small aircraft 
transportation system, to develop technology for use in improving 
utilization and safety of general aviation airports and aircraft, which 
have the highest accident rate of all modes of transportation, Mr. 
Chairman. This is an area that we desperately need to put these 
additional funds.
  Let me restate that by offering this amendment, I am in no way 
intending to criticize my chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for his hard work in crafting this bill. We simply did not have 
enough money to go around and hopefully we will as we move forward.
  We have, however, I think, with this amendment, put important 
resources back into NASA's programs that were underfunded so that it 
can carry out these important responsibilities.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York continues to reserve his 
point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). As we all know, there is no offset 
for this, but we are certainly sensitive to the desire of the gentleman 
to provide these funds where they are needed. Unfortunately, we do not 
have the additional funds to provide under our allocation. If, perhaps, 
later in the process, additional funds come available, we would be 
happy to work with the gentleman to resolve this. At this time, I must 
continue to hold a point of order against him.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) for yielding me the time, and I want to say that I have enjoyed 
working with the gentleman for years on NASA's issues.
  I represent the Marshal Space Flight Center back there in Alabama. 
When I came to the Congress in 1991, the gentleman was among the first 
people that we began working with to plan for a future for NASA that 
was beyond the space station. Also in coming to this subcommittee, I 
want to pay tribute to

[[Page 11759]]

the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) during my now two terms on the subcommittee, the gentleman has 
struggled vainly and against a lot of odds with allocations that made 
it very, very difficult for us to have the kind of NASA budget that 
some felt like we needed to have.
  However, at the end of the process, we made sure that NASA did 
receive the support of the committee, and I thank the gentleman from 
New York for that and for enduring with those of us that want to make 
sure that the particular line item programs are heard and have a voice 
there.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak more specifically to the Space Launch 
Initiative, because the ranking member, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is attempting through this amendment to restore 
funding that would help a number of NASA's programs, and he has spoken 
about those programs. But the Space Launch Initiative is a very 
important initiative that really defines NASA's future.
  It is designed to enable the aerospace industry and NASA to come 
together to look at a new version of space transportation. The Space 
Launch Initiative envisions NASA eventually purchasing launches from 
commercial launch vendors allowing NASA to then concentrate its 
resources on the science missions and space exploration as well. In 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I know the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr.  Hall) is here, and he will spend time 
discussing over this particular amendment the initiatives that the 
Committee on Science has undertaken here.
  We have given a mandate to NASA to come up with alternative means of 
transportation, working with the aerospace industry to make sure that 
they come up with these alternate means of transportation. Unless we 
restore this funding to NASA's budget, they will not be able to do 
that.
  I hope that the committee will hear this amendment, and especially as 
the process winds its way through, as we continue the rest of the 
summer, that we will be able to restore this important funding to NASA 
to make sure that the Space Launch Initiative is indeed a reality.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.  Walsh) reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the subcommittee for 
yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
  I want to say at the outset that I believe that the chairman of this 
subcommittee is not necessarily in theory opposed to the dollars being 
added back and, therefore, I think in terms of substance, we can all 
support this amendment.
  The ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
will argue that we are constrained by funding priorities, but I believe 
that this is a priority. I believe that is why the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has offered it. If we think NASA's work is 
confined to scientific esoterica that only a handful of Ph.D.s can 
understand, we need to think again. Research and development conducted 
by NASA for our space program has led to widespread social benefits, 
everything from improvements in commercial airline safety to 
understanding global climate change.

                              {time}  1500

  NASA's research also has benefited medical science. For example, its 
research on the cardiovascular systems is leading to breakthrough 
discoveries, testing procedures and treatments for heart disease. A few 
of today's space-derived improvements include blood pressure monitors, 
self-adjusting pacemakers and ultrasound images. You would not think of 
that at first blush. The amendment before us would restore $322.7 
million in funding for NASA's space and aeronautical programs, funding 
that was cut in committee from the President's number.
  The amendment before us brings our national priorities back into 
focus, which is, in my opinion, what we ought to do. It would restore 
$260 million to NASA's space launch initiative, which is critical for 
our future space needs. In addition, this amendment would restore $16.6 
million in funding for NASA's Living with a Star initiative, a project 
that will be run at Goddard Space Flight Center.
  Mr. Speaker, the tapestry of our national history is woven together 
by exploration and discovery, from the first settlers in Jamestown to 
the expeditions of Lewis and Clark, to Neil Armstrong's first step on 
the Moon 31 years ago. Today, let us reaffirm our national commitment 
to the latest frontier, science and technology.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me state my strong support for this amendment on 
NASA funding. It's not about pork-barrel spending and pet projects. 
It's about our Nation's peace and prosperity, and our quality of life.
  If you think that NASA's work is confined to scientific esoterica 
that only a handful of PhDs can understand, think again.
  Research and development conducted by NASA for our space program has 
led to widespread social benefits--everything from improvements in 
commercial airline safety to understanding global climate change.
  NASA's research also has benefitted medical science. For example, its 
research on the cardiovascular system is leading to breakthrough 
discoveries, testing procedures and treatments for heart disease. A few 
of today's space-derived improvements include blood pressure monitors, 
self-adjusting pacemakers and ultrasound images.
  The amendment before us would restore $322.7 million in funding to 
NASA's space and aeronautical programs--funding that was cut in 
committee. That's certainly a lot of money. However, before I describe 
the NASA programs that would be forced into a stare down with the 
budget ax, and why funding for these programs ought to be restored, let 
me ask this question: Are our national priorities so out of whack that 
we're willing to sacrifice our commitment to science and technology on 
the altar of enormous and irresponsible tax cuts? Despite the 
pioneering spirit that courses through our national character, the 
majority party apparently thinks so.
  Last year, they pushed their huge tax cut scheme through Congress, 
even though it could have put at risk the healthiest economy in our 
lifetimes. This year, they're back with equally irresponsible tax 
schemes.
  That's what this cut to NASA funding is all about--funding tax cuts 
that would benefit the wealthiest among us.
  The Republican Party--with its $175 billion in tax cuts over five 
years, which, according to some estimates, would rise to nearly $1 
trillion over 10 years--has to make its budget numbers add up somehow.
  Today, NASA's neck is stretched out on the chopping block. Yesterday, 
it was our school modernization and class-size reduction efforts. And 
tomorrow, it will be our initiative to put more police officers on our 
streets.
  All of these vital programs--and our effort to add a prescription 
drug benefit to Medicare--face the budget ax because the Republican 
Party would rather pass tax-cut schemes than invest in our Nation's 
future.
  The amendment before us brings our national priorities back into 
focus. It would restore $260 million to NASA's space launch initiative, 
which is critical for our future in space. Safe, low-cost space 
transportation is the key to expanded commercial development and civil 
exploration of space. This NASA program would enable new opportunities 
in space exploration and enhance international competitiveness of the 
U.S. commercial launch industry. It's no wonder that NASA believes this 
program could impact space exploration and commerce as deeply as the 
Apollo program.
  This amendment also would restore $16.6 million in funding for NASA's 
Living With a Star initiative--a project that will be run at Goddard 
Space Flight Center in my district. The Living With a Star initiative 
will enhance our understanding of the Sun and its impact on Earth and 
the environment. It will enable scientists to predict solar weather 
more accurately, and understand how solar variations affect civilian 
and military space systems, human space flight, electric power grids, 
high-frequency radio communications, and long-range radar.
  In addition, this amendment would restore $46.1 million in funding 
for two programs that are developing solutions to expensive delays in 
commercial airline traffic. NASA uses its

[[Page 11760]]

unique research capabilities to diagnose problems with current air 
traffic systems and develop technology solutions.
  Mr. Chairman, the tapestry of our national history is woven together 
by exploration and discovery--from the first settlers in Jamestown to 
the expeditions of Lewis and Clark to Neil Armstrong's first step on 
the Moon 31 years ago. We have never turned our backs on challenge. We 
have never been content with the status quo. We have always dared to 
peer over the next horizon.
  Today' let's reaffirm our national commitment to the latest frontier, 
science and technology. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. I continue to reserve, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Science.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to support this 
amendment. It is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for bringing it forth. I also want to suggest 
that the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), in his very level and fair-handed handling of this, has agreed 
to look at this with the gentleman and see if something cannot be 
worked out. That allows me to give back maybe some of the 3 minutes the 
gentleman has given me. The gentleman has covered almost everything. 
The figures have been covered.
  Members know I am a strong supporter of the national space program. I 
will not spend time today recounting all the benefits that have come 
out of the program over the years. I think everybody is aware of them.
  But I am disappointed in the way this appropriations bill treats 
NASA. NASA is not a Republican thrust nor a Democratic thrust. It is 
really an American thrust, and it has always been handled that way.
  When it came time, when the information came from the executive to 
cut back on programs, NASA was cut back more than any. NASA complied. 
Administrator Goldin agreed and cut it back because he knew he could 
cut it decisively with an intelligent knife; and if we cut it, 
sometimes we cut it with a baseball bat, not knowing really what we are 
doing. He cut it back about 35 percent over a period of 2\1/2\ years. I 
think we have kept the faith and we ought not to be cutting back on 
this NASA program again.
  I urge that the Mollohan amendment be supported. The gentleman 
touched on Living With the Star, and that has already been addressed, 
the space launch initiative and our skills in that field, and the space 
launch initiative, which transforms telecommunications, weather 
prediction, defense intelligence work, just to list some of the areas. 
It would be a mistake I think to lose our leadership in space 
transportation by failing to make these important investments.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of our 
ranking member's amendment. As the House considers this important 
amendment, I wanted to bring to Members' attention just one of the 
success stories of our space program.
  For the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to meet with and get 
to know an outstanding scientist and an astronaut in Houston, Texas. 
Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz has accompanied me to six of my middle schools 
in my district to talk about the need for students to take more math 
and science classes. I have also had the opportunity to visit Dr. 
Chang-Diaz in his plasma jet propulsion laboratory at Lyndon B. Johnson 
Space Center in Houston.
  Dr. Chang-Diaz is obviously a man of many talents. He is a veteran 
astronaut with six space flights and has logged over 1,269 hours; but 
even more so, he is a scientist and he is developing the new, and 
forgive me if I mispronounce it, the Variable Specific Impulse 
Magnetoplasma Rocket concept called VASIMR. The VASIMR prototype rocket 
engine is designed to shorten the trip to Mars, or anywhere else, and 
provide a safer environment for the crew.
  Dr. Chang-Diaz has been working with the scientists throughout NASA 
and the Department of Energy to develop this process today, and he has 
been able to secure funds to keep the project going. However, this 
project is just too important just to allow it to survive. While I do 
not make a specific request, Mr. Speaker, I hope in the future for 
assistance to fund the development of the VASIMR prototype rocket 
engine, and the ranking member's amendment will go far in that 
direction.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), my final speaker.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by 
the gentleman from West Virginia to restore funds to aeronautics 
research programs. This amendment is particularly important, given the 
actions we took last night to cut an additional $30 million from these 
programs on top of the cuts contained in the bill.
  Our national investment in aeronautics is moving dangerously in the 
wrong direction. We have already experienced a 30 percent cut in NASA 
aeronautics funding over the last 2 years, and then we made cuts in the 
bill and another cut last night.
  The National Research Council report in 1999 warned us that past cuts 
have already wreaked havoc and may threaten U.S. preeminence in our 
aerospace industry. Their leading panel of scientists warned us that 
continued reductions in aeronautics research and technology would 
jeopardize the ability of the United States to produce preeminent 
military aircraft and the ability of the aeronautics sector of the 
United States economy to remain globally competitive.
  Mr. Chairman, if these cuts are to be enacted, our aviation system is 
set on a disastrous course. The cuts we are making will put the safety 
and reliability of our air transport system at risk in the near future.
  Mr. Chairman, aeronautics research has yielded significant 
technological breakthroughs that we have seen recently; aircraft safety 
and efficiency, which includes wing design, noise abatement, structural 
integrity and fuel efficiency.
  Mr. Chairman, every aircraft worldwide uses NASA technology, and it 
is important to remember that these technological developments take 5, 
10, 20 years before they ever come to fruition. We know that domestic 
air traffic will triple in the next 20 years, and that is why we need 
to make these investments today.
  Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not just shortsighted, they are 
dangerous. I support the Mollohan amendment, because it will ensure the 
future safety and efficiency of our air transportation system.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan Amendment to 
increase funding for important housing programs. A shortage of 
affordable housing plagues America's cities and rural communities. 
Nonetheless, this bill fails to fund America's tremendous housing 
needs. Even worse, this bill cuts several billion dollars from last 
year's budget for many important affordable housing programs.
  The majority's bill denies housing assistance to low-income Americans 
living in federally subsidized affordable housing. On average, 
residents of Section 8 housing and public housing and public housing 
earn only $7,800. This bill denies housing assistance for senior 
citizens on fixed incomes. It forces working men and women to choose 
between housing, health care, food, and other basic needs.
  Compared to President Clinton's requested budget, HUD estimates it 
reduces housing assistance for San Francisco by $10.9 million and 
denies affordable Section 8 housing vouchers to 458 San Francisco 
families. It denies housing help to 234 San Francisco residents who are 
homeless or are living with HIV/AIDS.

[[Page 11761]]

  Representative Mollohan's amendment would invest additional funding 
to provide assistance across the country. At the Appropriations 
Committee, the Republicans rejected Mollohan's amendment. This 
amendment would have increased investments to build new affordable 
housing; provide new affordable housing vouchers; provide housing to 
the homeless; operate, build and modernize public housing; promote 
community economic development; provide housing and services to 
seniors, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with HIV/AIDS. 
Americans need this assistance and this bill falls short.
  I urge my colleagues to support Representative Mollohan's amendment 
and increase housing assistance to low-income Americans.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment to increase funding for NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and 
Technology account to the level of the President's request.
  When adequate funding for NASA was threatened in last year's VA-HUD 
appropriations bill, I received hundreds of letters and calls from my 
constituents in the 2nd Congressional district in Colorado expressing 
their concerns about the proposed budget cuts to federal science and 
NASA programs. Many of these calls and letters were from students, 
researchers, and employees who would have seen their work directly 
affected by cuts in NASA's budget. But many of the letters I received 
were from citizens with no direct involvement in NASA's programs. To 
me, their voices were especially significant because they point to a 
common understanding of the importance of continuing our investment in 
science, technology, research, and learning.
  This past February, I hosted a ``space weekend'' for constituents in 
my district. I told them at that time that I was encouraged by the 
President's proposed budget number for fiscal 2001 in the areas of 
research and development programs in general, and in NASA funding in 
particular. I told them I was hopeful that Congress would make the wise 
decision to make these needed investments--investments that will allow 
us to build on the foundation we've already laid.
  Unfortunately, those hopes have not been fulfilled. Today, the bill 
before us leaves NASA programs $322 million below the budget request. 
It eliminates almost all of the funding for the Small Aircraft 
Transportation System and the Aviation Capacity programs, both of which 
are intended to make use of NASA's technological capabilities to reduce 
air traffic congestion. It eliminates all of the funding for NASA's 
Space Launch Initiative, a program to help maintain American leadership 
in space transportation. And it eliminates all the money for NASA's 
effort to better forecast ``solar storms'' that, if undetected, can 
damage the nation's communications and national security satellites. 
This ``Living with a Star'' program is especially important to the 
University of Colorado at Boulder and federal laboratories in my 
district.
  Investing in NASA is a wise decision. The advancement of science and 
space should concern us all. We only have to look at some examples of 
the successful transfer and commercialization of NASA-sponsored 
research and technology to see why. From advances in breast tumor 
imaging and fetal heart monitoring to innovative ice removal systems 
for aircraft, NASA technology continues to benefit U.S. enterprises, 
economic growth and competitiveness, and quality of life.
  NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and Technology programs comprise the 
bulk of NASA's research and development activities. Two of these 
programs that are of great importance to my district are NASA's Offices 
of Space Science and Earth Science, which focus on increasing human 
understanding of space and the planet through the use of satellites, 
space probes, and robotic spacecraft to gather and transmit data.
  There are still so many unanswered questions about the origins of the 
universe, the stars and the planets, as well as about how we can use 
the vantage point of space to develop models to help us predict natural 
disasters, weather, and climate. But NASA can't answer these questions 
if we don't provide it with adequate resources. This bill does not make 
these much needed investments in our future, which is one reason I 
cannot support it.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. WALSH. I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed 
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000, 
House Report 106-683. This amendment would provide new budget authority 
in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under section 302(b) 
and is not permitted under section 302(f) of this act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of 
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, 
that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary 
budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of 
such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) would increase the level of new discretionary budget 
authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) 
of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The clerk read as follows:

                            mission support

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out mission support for human space flight programs 
     and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including 
     research operations and support; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including revitalization and modification of 
     facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities, facility planning and design, 
     environmental compliance and restoration, and acquisition or 
     condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     travel expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to 
     exceed $40,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement 
     only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $2,584,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $23,000,000.

                       administrative provisions

       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by 
     the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities 
     as authorized by law, such amount available for such activity 
     shall remain available until expended. This provision does 
     not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support'' 
     pursuant to the authorization for minor revitalization and 
     construction of facilities, and facility planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this 
     appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction 
     of facilities shall remain available until September 30, 
     2003.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of 
     Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for 
     personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2001 and may be used to enter 
     into contracts for training, investigations, costs associated 
     with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year. Funds for announced 
     prizes otherwise authorized shall remain available, without 
     fiscal year limitation, until the prize is claimed or the 
     offer is withdrawn.

                  National Credit Union Administration

                       central liquidity facility


                     (including transfer of funds)

       During fiscal year 2001, gross obligations of the Central 
     Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct 
     loans to member credit unions, as authorized by title III of 
     the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1795 et seq.), shall 
     not exceed $3,000,000,000: Provided, That administrative 
     expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility shall not exceed 
     $296,303: Provided further, That $1,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund, 
     of which $650,000, together with amounts of principal and 
     interes on loans repaid, shall be available until expended 
     for loans to community development credit unions, and 
     $350,000 shall be available until expended for technical 
     assistance to low-income and community development credit 
     unions.

                      National Science Foundation

                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as

[[Page 11762]]

     amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and the Act to establish a 
     National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 1880-1881); services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; authorized travel; acquisition, 
     maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight 
     services for research support; $3,135,690,000, of which not 
     to exceed $264,500,000 shall remain available until expended 
     for Polar research and operations support, and for 
     reimbursement to other Federal agencies for operational and 
     science support and logistical and other related activities 
     for the United States Antarctic Program; the balance to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That 
     receipts for scientific support services and materials 
     furnished by the National Research Centers and other National 
     Science Foundation supported research facilities may be 
     credited to this appropriation: Provided further, That to the 
     extent that the amount appropriated is less than the total 
     amount authorized to be appropriated for included program 
     activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings, 
     specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities 
     or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
       Page 77, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $404,990,000)''.
       Page 77, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,910,000)''.
       Page 77, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $61,940,000)''.
       Page 78, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $34,700,000)''.
       Page 78, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,890,000)''.
       Page 79, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $580,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed 
each will control 15 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment and to reserve the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with this bill, but I 
think one of the greatest is the lack of adequate funding for the 
National Science Foundation. This is an area that I think we should 
work in a bipartisan way to correct.
  Let me be clear: the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the 
ranking member and the members of the subcommittee have worked hard to 
meet the pressing needs with the limited funds that they have been 
given. They are not at fault here. But because of inadequate 
appropriations allocation, the National Science Foundation does not 
receive the funds it needs to continue its vital work.
  Now, in order to maintain our superb economic growth in this country, 
we need at least two things: a smart, well trained workforce and new 
ideas. The National Science Foundation plays a crucial role in both 
areas, in education, both elementary and secondary, as well as higher 
education, public education and museums and radio and television, and 
research in all areas.
  The NSF supports nearly 50 percent of nonmedical research conducted 
at academic institutions, and provides the fundamental underpinning for 
much of the medical research and other research we value in our 
society.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill we are being asked to support comes up 
short in the needed investments for the National Science Foundation. It 
cuts NSF investments in science and engineering by over $500 million, 
or 13 percent below the level requested by the President. So as funded, 
the bill would weaken U.S. leadership in science and engineering and 
deny progress that would result in improvement of the quality of life 
of all Americans.
  This is not just a case of the congressional leadership ignoring the 
President's request for the National Science Foundation. No. The 
leadership is ignoring its own plan for NSF funding. Just two months 
ago, Congress passed a budget blueprint for FY 2001 that called for 
significant increases in the National Science Foundation funding. As a 
member of the Committee on the Budget, I worked to increase that 
funding. In committee I helped pass an amendment to include an 
additional $100 million for the National Science Foundation and other 
government research. Later, as the budget came to the floor, along with 
advocates on both sides of the aisle, we succeeded in raising that 
allocation almost to the amount requested by the President.
  I do not think any of us suspected that a short 60 days later we 
would be presented with such a disappointing appropriation. At that 
time, with great fanfare, the majority presented these budget 
increases, this increase in money for the National Science Foundation. 
Can they not meet their own level?
  This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Increasing NSF 
funding would substantially help colleges and universities across the 
country and would help all Americans benefit in making prudent 
investments in our future. If we are going to continue to lead the 
global economy, we must have a well-trained workforce and the best 
research and scientific explorations in our colleges and universities 
and research institutions that we can provide.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full 
funding for the National Science Foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure the gentleman that 
offered this amendment that the subcommittee did not ignore the 
President's request. We honored the President's request, and I think 
the desires of the Congress to the best of our ability, given our 
allocation. The President requested a $675 million increase in NSF. He 
also requested a 20 percent increase in HUD and substantial increases 
elsewhere in the budget. There was no way, given the available 
resources that we had, to meet that request.
  However, what we did do was we increased funding for NASA, increased 
funding for HUD, increased funding for the Veterans Administration, and 
we increased funding for the National Science Foundation. In fact, we 
increased NSF by almost $170 million. That is a substantial increase. 
The budget is now over $4 billion. We believe strongly in investing in 
science and technology. I think that our conference has been clear and 
our record strong on supporting investments in science. However, we do 
not have unlimited resources. We are constrained by the allocation.
  I would add that if funds are made available at the end of this 
process as we go into the conference that we will look, and I know the 
gentleman from West Virginia feels the same way, we will look strongly 
at providing those resources for further investments in technology. At 
this time, we do not have those funds available to us, and for that 
reason, I would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we are here today because the committee has 
underfunded the President's budget request for the National Science 
Foundation by $500 million. Last year, Chairman Greenspan of the 
Federal Reserve said this: ``Something special has happened to the 
American economy in recent years. I have hypothesized on a

[[Page 11763]]

number of occasions that the synergies that have developed, especially 
among the microprocessor, the laser, fiber optics and satellite 
technologies have dramatically raised the potential rates of return on 
all types of equipment.''
  What has happened to the American economy, in my view, has a lot to 
do with the work of this committee and the work of this subcommittee. 
If we take a look at the technologies that Chairman Greenspan was 
talking about, this committee has been largely responsible for funding 
a number of them through the years, and the results show.
  If we take a look at the Internet, for instance, in 1985, the 
National Science Foundation built the first national backbone, the very 
infrastructure that makes the Internet work today. In 1993, the NSF 
provided the funding for the development of the first Web browser. The 
Internet economy will be worth $1 trillion by next year. It employs 
more than 1 million workers, and it is the engine of our economic 
growth.
  Biotechnology. In one of its first grants in 1951, NSF gave $5,000 
that helped to establish the very basis of genetic research. Since that 
pivotal discovery, the field has exploded. Sixty-five biotechnology 
drugs have been approved by the FDA since that time.
  DNA fingerprinting. In 1995, using a key NSF discovery which made 
that technique possible, the Centers for Disease Control was able to 
stop an outbreak of E. Coli illness because of what they had learned 
over the previous 10 years.
  MRI machines. That technology is amazing. It has revolutionized 
medicine, and that too has grown out of NSF funding.
  So has the satellite technology that Dr. Greenspan was talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in January of 1992, the 
Wilshire 500 index, which measures the value of all of the publicly 
owned companies in this country, stood at 4,337, which means that all 
of the stocks in those companies was worth about $4.3 trillion. Today, 
it is over $13 trillion. Just one company, Oracle, the growth in that 
company alone in the last 12 months has been larger than the total 
valuation of the Big 3 automakers, Ford, General Motors and 
DaimlerChrysler. That has been due in significant part to what we have 
learned through the research funded by NSF.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want the economy to grow, if we want to expand 
our knowledge of the problems that face us on the health front, we have 
to fund NSF to do the basic science that is required. When they do 
that, they can, in turn, pass it through to the National Institutes of 
Health who take it a step further, and we can finally come up with 
discoveries on how to deal with some of the most dreaded diseases in 
this society.
  So all it helps to do is to make the economy the engine that it is 
today. All it helps to do is to help human beings struggle with 
illnesses that we have fought against for generations. It is well worth 
the investment. It is extremely shortsighted for this agency to be 
short cut just so that the majority party can provide $90 billion in 
tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. That is a wrong 
priority; this is the right one. I congratulate the gentleman for 
offering the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many Federal agencies that compete for the 
VA-HUD budget allocation: the Veterans Administration, housing and 
urban development, Environmental Protection Agency, and other 
independent agencies such as the National Science Foundation. All of us 
here, Republican or Democrat, support the National Science Foundation 
because we know that much of their work, the greatest portion of their 
work, in fact, goes into university-based research. That support is 
bipartisan and nonpartisan, in fact.
  Further, this bill under discussion clearly reinforces the commitment 
of this Congress to scientific research as we are aware of the National 
Science Foundation marks its 50th anniversary this year. It is funded 
at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or 4.3 
percent over last year. We wish it could be more.
  It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4 
billion level. With only a small portion of Federal spending, this 
agency has been, has had a powerful impact on national science and 
engineering in most every State and institution of higher learning. 
Every dollar invested in the National Science Foundation returns 
manyfold its worth in economic growth.
  I note that 5 years ago, the National Science Foundation budget was 
$3.27 billion in the fiscal year 1997, and 3 years ago, the National 
Science Foundation budget had climbed to $3.6 billion in 1999.
  This year's increased National Science Foundation appropriation for 
the fiscal year 2000 continues us in the right direction. The 
remarkable discoveries mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin will 
continue with this allocation, and with more money, we can find it as 
this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall), the ranking member of the House Committee on Science.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in strong support 
of this amendment. The National Science Foundation is one of the few 
agencies in the government that is investing in the Nation's future. 
While we are enjoying the very greatest prosperity and the finest 
economic conditions since I have been in Congress, 20 years, and two 
generations, I think this is a time when we ought to be increasing our 
investment and not decreasing it. If not now, when are we going to do 
it? We have not been able to with the deficits back for the last 15 to 
18 years.
  NSF is shorted by $500 million from the President's request, and this 
amendment would fix this problem. If we adopt it, we would fully fund 
advanced information technology research that is endorsed today by 
leading American computer firms who tell us that we need it and we 
ought to do it. And these are important programs that will keep the 
U.S. at the forefront of new computer communications technologies.
  This is the same research this body unanimously supported in the 
February authorization. We supported it then, we ought to support it 
now.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the other side 
will try and do as far as smoke and mirrors is they will talk about the 
President's request. Republicans brought forward the President's 
budget, even his tax increase. The President made false assumptions. He 
increased taxes, he took Social Security money to balance his budget, 
and he used false assumptions such as the gas prices would stay the 
same, and guess what? We know what happened to them. They did not vote 
for it, but yet they use his numbers.
  An example is special education. The most the Democrats when they 
were in power ever increased special education was 6 percent. With 
Medicaid, in 5 years, we put it up to 18 percent. We increased special 
education by $500 million this year, but yet the President's budget, 
which none of them voted for, wanted over $1 billion, so Republicans 
are now cutting special education. That is the logic, and that and tax 
breaks for the rich is to fool the uninformed. It is a sham.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), someone who is very well positioned 
to speak to this as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me express my 
appreciation again to the committee and subcommittee chairs for their 
effort, but it is time to set the record straight. This is what we need 
the most to keep the rich rich and to provide for educational 
opportunities for young people coming along so we

[[Page 11764]]

can stop having to lift the caps of H1-B visas to bring people over 
here to do the job. This is the area that provides for that research 
and provides for the support of teachers and who get our young people 
educated so that they can enter this marketplace.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to stop faking an attempt to tell the 
real truth. The very rich in this country have not begged for this tax 
break. We are trying to cut all the basic things in order to save the 
money to give this tax cut for the very, very rich.
  We have made them have the opportunity for this wealth by this very 
research that can be done right here with these dollars. Mr. Chairman, 
$500 million is merely a drop in the bucket for what we will get in 
return. Every dollar we have ever put in research has come back 
fourfold.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. It will 
restore over $500 million cut by the underlying bill from the 
President's historic budget proposal for the National Science 
Foundation. The increase will bolster the activities of an agency with 
a critically important role in sustaining the nation's capabilities in 
science and engineering research and education.
  Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns 
to the economy that far exceed the public investment. One striking 
example is information technology, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan has repeatedly cited as primarily responsible for the 
nation's sparkling economic performance. Applications of information 
technology alone account for one-third of U.S. economic growth, and 
create jobs that pay almost 80 percent more than the average private-
sector wage.
  Restoring funding for NSF is important for the overall health of the 
nation's research enterprise because NSF is the only federal agency 
that supports basic research and education in all fields of science and 
engineering. While a relatively small agency, NSF nevertheless is the 
source of 36% of federal funding for basic research performed at 
universities and colleges in the physical sciences; 49% in 
environmental sciences; 50% in engineering; 72% in mathematics; and 78% 
in computer science.
  Recent trends in basic research support in some important fields have 
been alarming. For example, since 1993, physics funding has gone down 
by 29%; chemistry by 9%; electrical engineering by 36%; and mathematics 
by 6%.
  Last year alone, NSF could not fund 3,800 proposals that received 
very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. Good research ideas 
that are not pursued are lost opportunities. The amendment will greatly 
reduce the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to rejection 
because of inadequate budgets.
  The amendment will enable NSF to fund 4,000 more awards than the 
underlying bill for state-of-the-art research and education activities. 
It will prevent the curtailing of investments in exciting, cutting-edge 
research initiatives, such as information technology, nanoscale science 
and engineering, and environmental research. The effect of the 
amendment will be to speed the development of new discoveries with 
immense potential to generate significant benefits to society.
  Past examples of NSF research amply demonstrate the payoffs possible:
  Genetics--NSF played a critical role in supporting the basic research 
that led to the breakthroughs of mapping the human genome for which NIH 
justly receives credit. Research supported by NSF was key to the 
development of the polymerase chain reaction and a great deal of the 
technology used for sequencing.
  Magnetic Resonance Imaging--MRI, one of the most comprehensive 
medical diagnostic tools, was made possible by combining information 
gained through the study of the spin characteristics of basic matter, 
research in mathematics, and high flux magnets.
  Jet Printers--The mathematical equations that describe the behavior 
of fluid under pressure, which were developed under NSF support, 
provided the foundation for developing the ink jet printer.
  Ozone Hole--NSF-funded research in atmospheric chemistry identified 
ozone depletion over the Antarctic, or the ``ozone hole'' as it has 
come to be known, and established chlorofluorocarbons as the probable 
cause. Since CFCs are used in many commercial applications, this 
discovery has driven the search for benign substitutes and has led to a 
reduction of CFC emissions.
  The increase in funding made possible by the amendment also 
translates into almost 18,000 more researchers, educators, and students 
receiving NSF support. This is a direct, and positive, effect on the 
shortages projected in the high-tech workforce. It will increase the 
number of well-trained scientists and engineers needed for the Nation's 
future.
  I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for NSF-sponsored research 
that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials, 
environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent 
industries.
  The amendment will help sustain the economic growth that has been 
fueled by advances in basic research by restoring needed resources for 
the math, science, and engineering research and education activities of 
the National Science Foundation.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and 
since I have no further requests for time, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Holt 
amendment to restore the funding to the National Science Foundation in 
the amount of $508 million. As a former superintendent of my State 
schools, I know firsthand that the support for NSF for science and 
engineering education is so important. Every dollar invested in this 
agency returns manyfold its worth in economic growth.
  As the lead source of Federal funding for basic research at colleges 
and universities, NSF supports research in educational programs that 
are crucial to technological advances in the private sector and for 
training of our next generation of scientists and engineers, as we have 
already heard.
  This appropriation bill will jeopardize the Nation's investment in 
the future by cutting off NSF funding for science and engineering 
research and education by over $500 million.
  This is about 11% below the requested level. This reduction will 
seriously undermine priority investments in cutting-edge research and 
eliminate funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and 
mathematics educators.
  At a time when we are trying to improve the quality and quantity of 
science and mathematics in the United States, the bill is calling for 
an education cut that includes a reduction of 21%, or over 30 million, 
below the request for undergraduate education--including the nearly 50% 
cut in requested funding for the National Science, Math, Engineering 
and Technology Digital Library. These investments are key components of 
the Administration's 21st Century Workforce Initiative and critical to 
enable students to compete in the today's knowledge-based economy.
  Our values call on us to invest in our people for our nation's future 
rather than to waste our resources on an irresponsible tax plan.

                              {time}  1530

  This is about 11 percent below the requested level, and this 
reduction will seriously undermine previous investments in cutting edge 
technology and jeopardize research.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding time to me.
  First let me compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). In 
a very short period of time in the Congress he has distinguished 
himself as an expert in the area of government-sponsored research, and 
also has been its strongest advocate.
  I want to say that it is particularly appropriate that he is the 
author of this amendment because of the reputation that he is 
establishing in this area. We appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, let me also compliment the chairman of my subcommittee 
for being able to find money for a 4 percent increase in the NSF 
budget. In this budget allocation that we were given in our committee, 
that is quite a feat. It is in fact a recognition of his attitude 
towards how important basic funding research is.
  But it is not enough. Our economy, our new economy, demands that we 
invest more in the National Science Foundation in basic research. That 
is why I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who knows of

[[Page 11765]]

what he speaks. He in fact has done NSF-funded research.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Holt amendment. Work 
funded by the NSF touches our lives every day in a multitude of ways, 
from the meteorological technology like Doppler radar, which more 
accurately predicts storm paths, to advances in fiber optics used by 
the cable TV, the long distance telephone, and computer industries that 
benefits every American, to research to develop edible vaccines which 
would make vaccinating large groups of people easier.
  Mr. Chairman, these scientific advances are the result of decades of 
sustained research. We must invest in NSF research today to maximize 
the benefits of science and technology for tomorrow and the future. Our 
world and our economy are changing rapidly. We should not shortchange 
basic science research because that would shortchange our very futures.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his good remarks, and I also thank the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I think they hit it on the 
head.
  What we are confronted with here, Mr. Chairman, is an appropriation 
that comes in not just below the President's budget but below the 
request of the majority party.
  In their budget resolution with great fanfare just a couple of months 
ago they announced that they had increased the number for research to 
nearly the President's budget. Now we are faced with an appropriations 
bill that is $500 million below that. This is pennywise and pound 
foolish. Our investments in research have paid off.
  I am especially troubled by the $34 million reduction in NSF's 
education programs below this request. Cuts in undergraduate education 
undermine scholastic endeavors in every State in the Nation. In my own 
central New Jersey district, NSF education programs are funding 
projects at Monmouth University and Princeton University and Rider 
University. It would be a big mistake to reduce funding in these 
crucial areas.
  Mr. Chairman, economists do not agree on much, I find, but there is 
one thing that I hear over and over again from economists from Berkley 
to Harvard to Chicago to Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. We are 
now enjoying the fruits of investment in research and development made 
in decades past.
  We are not talking about just a little tweaking of the NSF and 
Federal research budget. We need to make a significantly greater 
investment in the research budget if we have any hope of maintaining 
the kind of economic growth that we are coming to rely on.
  We also need a smart, well-trained work force, and NSF contributes 
directly to that through education in elementary and secondary schools 
through higher education and through public education. We will not find 
better investments in our children's future than investment in 
education and in research and development. That is what this amendment 
is about.
  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, to the Fiscal Year 
2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. Without the adoption of Mr. Holt's 
timely amendment this bill will be woefully inadequate. As it stands, 
this bill would cut the National Science Foundation's budget for 
science and engineering research by over $500 million from the 
President's request. Mr. Holt's amendment will reinstate much of this 
funding and will allow important NSF programs to continue and grow.
  The current version of H.R. 4635 includes a reduction of 21 percent 
from NSF's requested sum for undergraduate education. This includes a 
nearly 50 percent cut in funding for the National Science, Math, 
Engineering and Technology Education Digital Library. Obviously, 
today's students cannot become tomorrow's leaders if they do not have a 
proper education. We must strive to give our students pertinent 
knowledge in these important fields. Mr. Holt's amendment will allow 
tomorrow's scientists to learn the valuable information they will need 
for the 21st century.
  Additionally, the bill we have on the floor today will eliminate 
funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and mathematics 
educators. These scientists and educators perform cutting edge research 
on a daily basis, and the elimination of their funding will weaken the 
United States world leadership in the fields of science and 
engineering. Furthermore, the bill will severely undercut funding for 
basic research, including health care, environmental protection, 
energy, and food production. Fortunately, Mr. Holt's amendment will 
restore this funding and allow the United States to maintain its 
positive reputation in the field of international research.
  Moreover, H.R. 4635 would result in the elimination of 4,000 grants 
for research and educational endeavors. Through this reduction, 
investments in the crucial fields of information technology, nanoscale 
science and engineering, and environmental research will drop, and thus 
will slow the development of new discoveries. Clearly, these cuts must 
be restored so that American technology can stay competitive in the 
global marketplace. Mr. Holt's amendment will allow American technology 
to continue to advance and improve.
  Finally, we must remember that in the past 50 years, half of U.S. 
economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation. In 
order to stimulate the economy for the next 50 years, we must make this 
important investment in America's future and support the NSF. As a 
result, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and I 
commend Mr. Holt for his steadfast leadership on this issue.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order. I make a 
point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of 
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget 
totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 21, 2000, House Report 106-686. 
This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b), and is not 
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee 
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an 
amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget 
authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such 
authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the 
bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        major research equipment

       For necessary expenses of major construction projects 
     pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as 
     amended, including authorized travel, $76,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $694,310,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That 
     to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less 
     than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     included program activities, all amounts, including floors 
     and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those 
     program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced 
     proportionally.

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; 
     reimbursement of the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; $152,000,000: Provided, That 
     contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses'' 
     in fiscal year 2001 for maintenance

[[Page 11766]]

     and operation of facilities, and for other services, to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $5,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2002.

                 Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

          payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation

       For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 
     for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as 
     authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $90,000,000, of which $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a homeownership program that is used in conjunction 
     with section 8 assistance under the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937.

                        Selective Service System

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System, 
     including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training 
     for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service 
     System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian 
     employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; $23,000,000: Provided, That none 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act may be expended for or 
     in connection with the induction of any person into the Armed 
     Forces of the United States.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of 
     this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific 
     limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such 
     travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth 
     therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the 
     appropriations: Provided, That this provision does not apply 
     to accounts that do not contain an object classification for 
     travel: Provided further, That this section shall not apply 
     to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local 
     boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to 
     travel performed directly in connection with care and 
     treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with 
     major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the 
     President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel 
     performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection 
     with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency 
     motor pools where separately set forth in the budget 
     schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles 
     I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget 
     estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the 
     expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the 
     amounts therefore set forth in the estimates in the same 
     proportion.
       Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the 
     administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be 
     available in the current fiscal year for purchase of 
     uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.

  The CHAIRMAN (during the reading). The Clerk will suspend the 
reading.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly); amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey); the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver); amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       Page 25, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 170, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                               AYES--250

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall

[[Page 11767]]


     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Ewing
     Greenwood
     Matsui
     McIntosh
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1558

  Ms. KILPATRICK and Messrs. FATTAH, SAWYER, TIERNEY and BARCIA changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO, Mr. LATHAM and Mr. WISE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1600


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device may be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 46, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,770,000)''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 211, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               AYES--207

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--211

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Abercrombie
     Campbell
     Cook
     Cox
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy
     McIntosh
     Moran (VA)
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1606

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida and Mr. SNYDER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 300, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''


                     amendment offered by Mr. Olver

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 314, 
noes 108, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page 11768]]



                             [Roll No. 301]

                               AYES--314

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--108

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Everett
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Abercrombie
     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Gekas
     McIntosh
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1616

  Mr. WAMP and Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. CANNON, DICKEY, and McNULTY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Roemer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98, 
noes 325, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                                AYES--98

     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Camp
     Carson
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Evans
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--325

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page 11769]]


     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abercrombie
     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     McIntosh
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  1625

  Messrs. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, MARKEY, and FOSSELLA changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. NADLER, OLVER, and PEASE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, I was unavoidably 
detained from presence on the House floor as a result of meetings at 
the White House with respect to the Medal of Honor winners.
  Had I been present, I would have voted on amendments to H.R. 4635, 
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001: on rollcall number 300, 
yes; rollcall number 301, yes; and rollcall number 302, yes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 90, line 16, be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 81, line 11 through page 90, line 16 
is as follows:
       Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act 
     or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available, 
     without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses, 
     for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for 
     utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of 
     Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National 
     Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 
     Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or any member 
     thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured bank within 
     the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 
     as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
       Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     expended--
       (1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee 
     of the United States unless--
       (A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a 
     voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and 
     the items or services for which such expenditure is being 
     made; or
       (B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such 
     certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is 
     specifically authorized by law; and
       (2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the 
     General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law 
     from such audit.
       Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency may be expended for the transportation 
     of any officer or employee of such department or agency 
     between their domicile and their place of employment, with 
     the exception of any officer or employee authorized such 
     transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
       Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients 
     that do not share in the cost of conducting research 
     resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the 
     Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the 
     recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the 
     grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
       Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used, 
     directly or through grants, to pay or to provide 
     reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant 
     (whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at 
     more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by 
     law.
       Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
     Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory 
     proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
       Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law, 
     or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an 
     existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any 
     appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting 
     service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter 
     of public record and available for public inspection; and (2) 
     thereafter included in a publicly available list of all 
     contracts entered into within 24 months prior to the date on 
     which the list is made available to the public and of all 
     contracts on which performance has not been completed by such 
     date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall be 
     updated quarterly and shall include a narrative description 
     of the work to be performed under each such contract.
       Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of 
     any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et 
     seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive 
     agency: (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in 
     full compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated 
     thereunder; and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to 
     such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies, 
     analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency 
     which is substantially derived from or substantially includes 
     any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain 
     information concerning: (A) the contract pursuant to which 
     the report was prepared; and (B) the contractor who prepared 
     the report pursuant to such contract.
       Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of such department or agency.
       Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any 
     department or agency shall be obligated or expended to 
     procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001 
     with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than 
     22 miles per gallon.
       Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this 
     Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real 
     property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000 
     unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of 
     30 days has expired following the date on which the report is 
     received by the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into 
     any contract with, any entity using funds made available in 
     this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for 
     indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management 
     and Budget Circular A-21.
       Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2001 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program,

[[Page 11770]]

     project, or activity, when it is made known to the Federal 
     entity or official to which the funds are made available that 
     the program, project, or activity is not in compliance with 
     any Federal law relating to risk assessment, the protection 
     of private property rights, or unfunded mandates.
       Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the 
     Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to each such 
     corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make 
     such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be 
     necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the 
     budget for 2001 for such corporation or agency except as 
     hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these 
     corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or 
     mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly 
     provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of 
     other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior 
     appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not 
     apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of 
     these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are 
     necessary to protect the financial interest of the United 
     States Government.
       Sec. 420. NASA Full Cost Accounting.--Title III of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, P.L. 85-568, is 
     amended by adding the following new section at the end:
       ``Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for 
     fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in three 
     accounts, ``Human space flight'', ``Science, aeronautics and 
     technology,'' and an account for amounts appropriated for the 
     necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General. 
     Appropriations shall remain available for two fiscal years. 
     Each account shall include the planned full costs of the 
     Administration's related activities.
       ``(b) To ensure the safe, timely, and successful 
     accomplishment of Administration missions, the Administration 
     may transfer amounts for Federal salaries and benefits; 
     training, travel and awards; facility and related costs; 
     information technology services; publishing services; 
     science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and 
     other administrative services among accounts, as necessary.
       ``(c) The Administrator, in consultation with the Director 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, shall determine what 
     balances from the ``Mission support'' account are to be 
     transferred to the ``Human space flight'' and ``Science, 
     aeronautics and technology'' accounts. Such balances shall be 
     transferred and merged with the ``Human space flight'' and 
     ``Science, aeronautics and technology'' accounts, and remain 
     available for the period of which originally appropriated.''
       Sec. 421. None of the funds provided in title II for 
     technical assistance, training, or management improvements 
     may be obligated or expended unless HUD provides to the 
     Committees on Appropriations a description of each proposed 
     activity and a detailed budget estimate of the costs 
     associated with each activity as part of the Budget 
     Justifications. For fiscal year 2001, HUD shall transmit this 
     information to the Committees by November 1, 2000, for 30 
     days of review.
       Sec. 422. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act, no 
     part of any appropriation for the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall be available for any activity in 
     excess of amounts set forth in the budget estimates submitted 
     to the Congress.
       Sec. 423. Pesticide Tolerance Fees.--None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be 
     used to promulgate a final regulation to implement changes in 
     the payment of pesticide tolerance processing fees as 
     proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, or any similar proposals. The 
     Environmental Protection Agency may proceed with the 
     development of such a rule.
       Sec. 424. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     effective with enactment of this Act, the General Services 
     Administration shall allocate one Senior Executive Service 
     slot for the position of Director, Federal Consumer 
     Information Center, from the total number of Senior Executive 
     Service positions authorized to the General Services 
     Administration by the Office of Personnel Management: 
     Provided, That said Senior Executive Service slot shall be a 
     permanent career reserved position and filled with all due 
     speed: Provided further, That this Senior Executive Service 
     slot shall remain hereafter in the Federal Consumer 
     Information Center. Such funds as may be necessary to carry 
     out this provision shall be made available from funds 
     appropriated to the Federal Consumer Information Center Fund.
       Sec. 425. None of the funds provided in title III of this 
     Act shall be obligated or expended to support joint research 
     programs between the United States Air Force and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration. Specifically, none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be used to support the activities 
     of the AF-NASA Council on Aeronautics and the AFSPC-NRO-NASA 
     Partnership Council.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), 
as he knows, there is report language attached to this bill that tells 
the EPA not to undertake dredging of contaminated sediments until the 
completion of a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
  I understand that similar language has been included in the VA-HUD 
report in each of the past 2 years.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, that is correct.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman may know, 
sediments in the Fox River in Northeast Wisconsin have been determined 
to be contaminated with PCBs.
  Last year a number of the paper companies along this river did a 
dredging demonstration project, commonly referred to as 5657. 
Unfortunately, the demonstration project did not remove enough of the 
contaminated sediments to adequately clean up the site.

                              {time}  1630

  I along with most of the citizens of Northeastern Wisconsin have been 
pushing both the paper companies and the EPA to complete the cleanup of 
this site. Fortunately, one of the companies involved recently reached 
an agreement with EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
to go back into 56/57 and complete the dredging to its original 
specifications. Some people have expressed concern that this report 
language might have an effect on this agreement and on the overall push 
for a settlement and cleaning up of the Fox River. I want to ask for a 
clarification on this matter. Specifically, can the gentleman from New 
York tell me whether this report language will have any impact on the 
work scheduled for the Fox River?
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Specifically, this 
language says that, and I quote, ``exceptions are provided for 
voluntary agreements,'' and therefore I can assure him that this 
language will not affect the specific project he is concerned with, the 
site he called 56/57. Furthermore, nothing in this report language 
should be construed as preventing or discouraging a prompt settlement 
between the EPA and the paper companies along the Fox River for cleanup 
of the PCBs.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for this clarification 
and for his attention to this matter.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My 
friend from New York knows that I have been greatly concerned about the 
chronic problem of transborder sewage pollution coming from Mexico 
which continues to contaminate the oceans and close the beaches of the 
communities of South San Diego County, including my hometown of 
Imperial Beach. I have been working closely with the gentleman to 
address this problem of protecting the public health in my community.
  Specifically, I want to thank the gentleman for his careful 
consideration of my request to take action on the issue of the 
arbitrary cap on the spending limit on the U.S. international 
wastewater treatment plant across from Tijuana, Mexico, that treats 
their sewage and discharges it onto the beaches of my hometown of 
Imperial Beach. This cap was put in place in this VA-HUD bill by the 
102nd Congress in 1992-1993. The sad result of this cap is that the 
international treatment plant, which is operated by the Federal 
Government, is now operating in violation of the Clean Water Act. This 
arbitrary cap must be lifted in order to provide for

[[Page 11771]]

construction of secondary treatment on our side of the border that will 
adequately address both current and future flows of Mexican sewage.
  The Federal Government requires upgrades for environmental reasons at 
similar private sector and local facilities all over this country, but 
at the same time this arbitrary cap which was set by a previous 
Congress is resulting in the violation by the Federal Government of its 
own Clean Water Act. As the chairman of the subcommittee is aware, I 
have prepared an amendment to his bill which would have sought a 
lifting of this cap, and the facilitation of the timely construction of 
the secondary sewage facility. However, I am informed that the 
amendment would have been subject to a point of order as legislation on 
an appropriation bill.
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his statement and I thank him 
also for his strong environmental leadership in Southern California. He 
is noted throughout this House for his clear thinking. The gentleman is 
also correct that while the intentions of this amendment are quite 
clear, because the effect of the amendment would alter existing law, it 
would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would reluctantly 
be forced to bring a point of order against the amendment which would 
be sustained.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. Given this 
procedural situation, I will not be offering my amendment at this time 
but will continue to work together with the gentleman on his bill to 
address the cap issue as the legislation moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the Federal Government be required 
to achieve the same environmental standards that they and we require on 
everyone else.
  Mr. WALSH. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and will certainly 
continue to work with him on this issue. The gentleman from California 
has made very clear to me the chronic problems his community faces as a 
result of the problems of Mexican sewage flows, and he has made clear 
his desire to lift the cap in order to help provide the appropriate 
levels of treatment to do so.
  While we share his interest in resolving this issue, we remain 
concerned with the preferred proposal which EPA has chosen by which to 
provide secondary treatment which we believe would not be adequate to 
protect the public health. We therefore believe it would be unwise to 
raise the cap at this time. As is stated in the report, however, the 
committee will be continuing to examine progress on this issue, 
including the potential for secondary facilities to be sited in Mexico. 
We anticipate revisiting this important issue of secondary treatment at 
a later time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I want to thank the gentleman for his consideration and 
commitment. Mr. Chairman, my community is just asking how many more 
decades have to pass before the citizens of Imperial Beach and South 
San Diego are protected by their Federal Government from pollution from 
a foreign country.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2000.
     Hon. James Walsh, Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, 
       HUD, and Independent Agencies, House Appropriations 
       Committee, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walsh: I am writing to follow up on our 
     continuing conversations regarding the public health and 
     environmental threats posed by untreated Mexican sewage 
     flowing into the U.S. and on to beaches in my district, and 
     the need for secondary sewage treatment along our border with 
     Mexico. I greatly appreciate the level of attention you and 
     your staff have shown to me on this critical issue to date.
       As you well know, the Environmental Protection Agency has 
     selected a ponding alternative for 25 mgd of secondary 
     treatment at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant 
     (IWTP). While EPA has indicated that its chosen alternative 
     would not require the appropriation of new monies, it 
     nonetheless remains extremely controversial in South Bay 
     communities. There is widespread concern that constructing 
     ponds at this site would be shortsighted for two significant 
     engineering reasons--(1) current levels of sewage have 
     already reached to 50 mgd and higher, which would 
     overcapacitate the 25 mgd ponds from day one, and (2) 
     potential future expansion of the IWTP's capacity would be 
     precluded by the location of secondary ponds on this site.
       It was for these reasons that I prevailed on the EPA 
     throughout much of last year to give every possible 
     consideration to the construction (by a public-private 
     partnership) of a secondary treatment facility in Mexico, 
     which would utilize the same kind of technology preferred by 
     the EPA, but would have the ability to build out to treatment 
     levels of 50, 75 or even 100 mdg, and in the process reclaim 
     the wastewater for reuse in Mexico. It is clear that capacity 
     levels of this magnitude are going to be needed in order to 
     meet the needs of this rapidly growing region. However, the 
     EPA has made clear its intention to proceed with its 
     preferred alternative on the U.S. side, and has asked for 
     your support in raising the cap on spending at the IWTP, in 
     order to construct the ponds with funds already appropriated 
     to it within the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund 
     (BEIF).
       I have reservations about the practicality of the EPA's 
     preferred alternative, and believe that the immediate threat 
     to our ocean and beaches in the U.S. stems from untreated 
     Mexican sewage flows which are not being captured and treated 
     at the IWTP. However, it is nonetheless critical to 
     communities in the region, such as my hometown of Imperial 
     Beach, that this effluent is treated to secondary levels, and 
     that the capacity for doing so is able to be expanded in a 
     timely manner in order to address the increasing levels of 
     flow from Mexico. In order to achieve this target of 
     secondary treatment, regardless of the alternative or 
     technology chosen, the existing cap on spending will need to 
     be raised. In a letter dated April 12, the EPA specifically 
     asked for your assistance in this regard.
       You will recall that I supported a similar request from the 
     EPA to raise the spending cap in the waning hours of the 
     105th Congress; however, it was submitted by the 
     Administration too late to merit serious consideration at 
     that ``eleventh hour.'' I recognize and appreciate the 
     Subcommittee's fiscal and policy concerns about EPA's 
     preferred alternative which you have outlined to me 
     previously, including the subsequent likely need in the very 
     near future to construct yet another costly facility in the 
     US. to treat sewage flows which will exceed 25 mdg capacity 
     of secondary ponds. I know that is a challenging issue your 
     Subcommittee; however, the need for secondary treatment is 
     clear. Therefore, I would respectfully urge you to pursue 
     language in your FY 2001 bill which would facilitate raising 
     the cap and embarking on a means to achieve secondary 
     treatment which will comprehensively address this problem.
       I greatly appreciate your continued concern for and 
     interest in this important issue, and thank you again for 
     your consideration. Please don't hesitate to contact me 
     directly, or Dave Schroeder of my staff, should your have 
     question or require any additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Brian Bilbray,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 4635, as Reported, VA HUD Appropriations Act, 2001, 
                  Offered by Mr. Bilbray of California

       Page 90, after line 16, insert the following:
       Sec. 426. The limitation on the amounts of funds 
     appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency that may 
     be used for making grants under section 510 of the Water 
     Quality Act of 1987 under the heading state revolving funds/
     construction grants in title III of the Departments of 
     Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 
     1599) shall not apply to funds appropriated in this Act or 
     any other Act approved after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
for a colloquy between himself and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) yielding to me. In turn I want to express 
my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for their 
longstanding interest in the subject we are about to discuss.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) to enter into a colloquy to clarify the effects of this 
legislation on EPA's pending radon drinking water regulation. It may 
surprise some in this body to know that the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman) and I have a long history of working together on behalf of 
the environment, particularly in California. The issue of radon gives 
us another opportunity to

[[Page 11772]]

work together in a bipartisan fashion. Water districts across the 
country are understandably concerned about the high costs of treating 
water for radon while little is done to address radon in indoor air. 
EPA's own science indicates that 98 percent of the threat from radon 
comes from sources other than drinking water. Is this the gentleman's 
understanding?
  Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is correct. I would also note our history 
of working together to protect the environment. Radon in indoor air is 
the second leading cause of lung cancer and is a serious public health 
concern. Although radon in tap water can pose significant risk, the 
clear majority of the risk from radon on a national basis comes from 
radon seeping into homes from soil. For this reason and for the reasons 
the gentleman stated, the Safe Drinking Water Act was drafted to allow 
for the implementation of multimedia programs that would allow States 
to focus on radon more on indoor air than on drinking water. This would 
allow the States to address radon in the most cost-effective manner 
possible. If States implement these programs, then public water systems 
could comply with much less stringent standards while we achieve 
improved public health protection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I agree that radon is a serious public 
health issue and that a multimedia approach is a sensible way to 
address it. Unfortunately, I have heard many concerns from my 
constituents about this proposed regulation. I believe other Members 
have as well. In California alone, if the State does not adopt a 
multimedia program, the water agencies have stated that this new 
standard for radon in water would cost water customers some $400 
million in the first year of implementation. Would the gentleman agree 
that it may be appropriate for Congress to pass legislation to provide 
greater health protection than the proposed radon drinking water rule? 
My intent is to provide reasonable resources to address radon in indoor 
air and provide greater certainty to drinking water providers that they 
will be spending money sensibly.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I agree and believe the law could be strengthened in this 
manner. I want to commit to working together on an expedited basis to 
develop legislative language that would achieve these goals. I believe 
we do not need to delay the EPA regulations to achieve this goal and 
that delaying the regulations may be counterproductive. Will the 
gentleman agree to work on legislation with technical assistance from 
EPA?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly will. I appreciate the gentleman 
extending that hand, for there is little doubt that this problem does 
not know partisan lines and to be able to work together with him 
dealing with EPA would be very helpful to me and much appreciated.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman also agree to address the radon report 
language in conference to prevent the rule from being delayed?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, I will if the gentleman will agree to 
work on a bipartisan approach to this problem that is a good solution. 
Bipartisan legislation could address the concerns of all stakeholders. 
I look forward to working with the gentleman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I look forward to working with him in seeing that we can 
resolve this in a way that will be most productive for protecting 
public health.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. We appreciate the committee's cooperation.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 19, after line 21, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 114. Not later than March 30, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a 
     report on the program of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     for the establishment and operation at Department medical 
     centers of Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical 
     Centers (MIRECCs). The report shall include the following:
       (1) Identification of the allocation by the Secretary, from 
     funds appropriated for the Department in this Act and for 
     prior fiscal years, of funds for such Centers, including the 
     number of Centers for which funds were provided and the 
     locations of those Centers.
       (2) A description of the research activities carried out by 
     those Centers with respect to major mental illnesses 
     affecting veterans.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The amendment I am offering today would require the Department of 
Veterans Affairs by March 30 of next year to report to the Congress on 
the establishment and operation of their mental illness research, 
education and clinical centers. In addition, the report would include 
an accounting of the funds allocated by the Department for these 
centers and a description of the research activities carried out by 
these facilities.
  Let me say that serious mental illness remains one of the most 
debilitating and costly scourges facing individuals who suffer, their 
families and friends and our Nation's communities. Among those who 
suffer are thousands and thousands of veterans. Nearly 2 years ago 
right outside these doors, Officers Gibson and Chestnut were gunned 
down just inside this Capitol by a man who suffered from serious mental 
illness. I asked myself then when would we as a Nation look this set of 
illnesses squarely in the eye and do what is required to unlock the 
mysteries that shroud medical understanding and treatment.
  Importantly, at the direction of this Congress, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs has now opened eight mental illness research, 
education and clinical centers across our country. The Department is 
noted for so many scientific breakthroughs. I just want to also state 
for the record that three of the centers that currently operate were 
opened in 1997, three more in 1998, and the last two in 1999. In the 
1999 selection process, there were eight applicants and of these, five 
merited site visits and two were considered outstanding and were 
approved.
  But it is estimated that even with the opening of these centers, the 
Veterans Affairs budget for mental health research has remained flat 
for a decade and a half.
  VA mental health research remains disproportionate to the utilization 
of mental illness treatment services by veterans. In fact, in 1988 only 
11 percent of all VA research was dedicated to chronic mental illness, 
substance abuse and post-traumatic stress syndrome, despite the fact 
that nearly 25 percent of patients in the system receive mental illness 
treatment. That is one system where people are actually being treated. 
The problem is we do not have answers to so many of these serious 
illnesses, illnesses like schizophrenia, illnesses like bipolar 
disorder, illnesses that do not go away but are in fact chemical 
imbalances of the central nervous system.
  My amendment is an attempt to get the Department of Veterans Affairs 
to carefully focus on what they are doing to provide this Congress with 
a better understanding on the mission of each of the centers, their 
funding as well as their achievements so we can work hand in hand with 
the Department to help not just find answers for America's veterans but 
indeed to use the Department of Veterans Affairs to find answers for 
all those who suffer from these horrendous diseases here in our 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) claim the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 11773]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition, and I thank the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her amendment. I thank her for her strong 
advocacy for the mentally ill. She has always worked extremely hard and 
with real dedication to this issue to ensure that medical and social 
services are reached by those in need, especially our veterans.
  I know of no objection to this amendment, and for that reason, I 
would accept the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his openness and willingness to 
work hand and hand with us on this and also express my appreciation on 
behalf of all of those who suffer.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for 
allowing me this time early on in this particular title. I genuinely 
appreciate the acceptance of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with a member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, a distinguished Member (Mr. 
Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for 
yielding to me on this issue. I want to report to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh) that the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
has just contacted me to state their claim that any failure to achieve 
an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the EPA is not for any lack 
of trying on the part of the NRC.
  I hope that as we move to and through the conference that we have an 
opportunity to look into the matter and examine the facts and merits of 
their claim.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for communicating this 
matter to me and to the subcommittee and will look into the claim of 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the attendant report language.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) The amount provided in title I for ``VETERANS 
     HEALTH ADMINISTRATION--Medical Care'' is hereby increased by 
     $500,000,000, and the amount provided in title I for 
     ``VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION--Medical and Prosthetic 
     Research'' is hereby increased by $65,000,000.
       (b) Any reduction for a taxable year beginning before 
     January 1, 2003, in the rate of tax on estates under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is enacted during 2000 
     shall not apply to a taxable estate in excess of $20,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I can think of no group that deserves Congress' support 
more than America's veterans, and this amendment is about supporting 
and keeping our commitment to those veterans.
  According to the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the $535 million 
in increased VA medical care and research funding in this amendment is 
needed and I quote, ``to fill the funding gap so the needs of our 
Nation's veterans can be properly met.''
  Dennis Cullinan, director of the National Legislative Service for the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars sent me a letter 2 days ago saying the VFW, 
and I quote, ``would like to take this opportunity to extend our 
support to your amendment.''
  Mr. Chairman, why is this amendment needed? The answer is very 
simple, to keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans, just as those 
veterans have kept their commitment to us. As the DAV, VFW, AMVETS and 
Paralyzed Veterans of America have said, ``over the past decade, 
spending for veterans' health care has fallen dramatically short of 
keeping pace with medical inflation and associated cost increases.''
  How do we pay for my amendment? We do it by simply delaying the 
recently passed estate tax reduction for estates only over $20 million. 
That would save us $1 billion over 2 years, the exact same amount it 
would take to improve health care for America's 25 million veterans.
  In other words, we can see that millions of veterans receive the 
health care they need and deserve if this House will simply today say 
that approximately 6 of the richest families in each State should not 
receive a $500 million a year tax windfall.
  The choice is very clear. We can tell one-ten thousandth of 1 percent 
of the richest estates in America that we are not going to give you a 
tax break. Why? So we can take care of the millions of veterans who 
sacrificed to ensure your family's freedom and opportunity.
  The question today is, whose side are we on? Do we want to help 
millions of veterans struggling to get better health care, or do we 
want to help one ten-thousandth of 1 percent of America's most affluent 
families?
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of candidate speeches lately about 
values, but I would suggest that, as Members of Congress, how we vote 
on budget priorities says a lot more about our values than all of our 
speeches combined.
  To keep our Nation's commitment to veterans, we do not have to undo 
the entire estate tax reform bill passed just 2 weeks ago on this 
floor.
  We do not even have to raise taxes on the wealthy, who frankly have 
already received enormous tax cuts through reductions and capital gains 
taxes. All we have to do is tell Bill Gates and Steve Forbes and about 
300 of America's richest estates each year that we believe that taking 
care of millions of veterans and their health care is more important 
than giving another tax break.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be a simple choice. It is a clear 
choice. If no Member of this House will object this afternoon, we can 
pass this amendment and help veterans today.
  I would point out the Republican leadership did let tax provisions be 
put in the appropriations bill passed on October 20 of 1998 on this 
floor. I would hope the Republican leadership would give America's 
veterans the same procedural respect today that hundreds of other less 
deserving groups were given in October of 1998 on the appropriations 
bill in this House.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say they have done a very respectable, fine job 
of supporting veterans given the Republican budget constraints caused 
by massive regressive tax proposals.
  I do want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their subcommittee 
work. They have done well within those constraints.
  This amendment though is not about their work on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, rather this amendment is about a clear choice of whether 
Congress should spend an additional $500 million helping one-ten 
thousandth of 1 percent of America's families or whether we want to 
take that same $500 million and help millions of America's veterans.

[[Page 11774]]

  It is a clear choice. This amendment is about our priorities in this 
House. It is about our values. It is about whose side are we on. Let us 
vote for the Edwards amendment and stand by the veterans who have stood 
up for all of America's veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.  Walsh) continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has 5 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has reserved his 
time and his point of order.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), who is the senior Democrat on the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs and has been a stalwart fighter on behalf of veterans' 
programs in this Congress.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) for his amendment. He is a great advocate for veterans as his 
amendment again demonstrates.
  The Edwards amendment increases funding next year for veterans' 
medical care, by $500 million and funding for the VA medical research 
by $35 million. These increases are needed if veterans are to receive 
access to timely and high-quality medical care and services, and the 
research program of VA is to be adequately funded.
  Too many veterans are being forced to wait too long to receive the 
medical care they need and deserve. Today some veterans are waiting as 
long as 6 months for an appointment with a primary care provider. The 
waiting list for an appointment with the specialist can actually be 
longer.
  The Edwards amendment provides resources to improve the quality and 
timely delivery of medical care to our Nation's veterans. VA is 
recognized worldwide as a leader in medical research.
  The Edwards amendment will increase funds for the VA medical research 
program next year by $65 million. Under the current level of funding 
for VA medical research, only a small portion of worthwhile projects 
are provided needed funding. The Edwards increase in research funding 
is a sound investment to enable VA researchers to make breakthrough 
discoveries which will benefit veterans and the general population.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for offering 
his amendment, it is a sign of his leadership on these issues. I urge 
my colleagues to vote for the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), a ranking Democrat on the VA Subcommittee on 
Benefits. He also has been a real leader on veterans' programs in this 
Congress.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Edwards amendment and 
in strong support of our Nation's veterans. The amendment of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) calls for an increase in $500 
million in the health budget of the VA. This money was not just pulled 
from the air, that figure, it comes from this document, the Independent 
Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, a comprehensive policy 
document created by veterans for veterans.
  All of the veterans in this Nation got together to say what do we 
need for a professional Veterans Administration and one that will keep 
up our health and our benefits. This is a professional job, an 
analytical job. Let me just tell Members where that $500 million will 
go.
  Under the section on staff shortages, in this independent budget, let 
me just read what veterans experts have concluded, faced with severe 
budget shortfalls, VA facilities have laid off hundreds of employees, 
including physicians, nurses, physicians assistants, and other clinical 
staff.
  Layoffs combined with staff attrition from retirement, transfer and 
resignation have left VA facilities with insufficient clinical staff to 
meet veterans' needs. In some cases, administrators have had difficulty 
filling vacant positions compounding their staff shortages.
  We have witnessed many cases of poor quality care that are the direct 
result of inadequate staffing. For example, one spinal cord injury 
center with dangerously low staffing levels has seen its mortality rate 
increase threefold during the last 4 years. We are killing veterans 
because we have inadequate staffing levels.
  Adequate numbers of well-trained staff are needed to keep up with the 
workload to prevent potentially harmful delays in care and to provide 
appropriate care. At one VA center in our country, for example, a 
patient faced a 97-day wait for an appointment at the vascular clinic 
and a 14-month wait for dental prosthetics at the dental clinic.
  One stroke patient at this medical center reported having his 
outpatient rehabilitation therapy suspended for several weeks, because 
his therapist went on vacation and there was no one to cover her. 
Because of staff shortages brought on by budget constraints, VA 
facilities have drastically reduced services or eliminated them 
altogether.
  After the dental department at one medical center was downsized from 
5 to 3, routine oral exams given to veterans as part of their physicals 
were simply phased out. This was done despite the fact that dentists at 
the clinic found an unusually high number of oral cancers from veterans 
during these exams.
  What are we doing to the people who have provided us with this great 
economy that we have today? We are eliminating the services that can 
save their life or prolong the quality of their life. Not only is 
elimination of routine oral exams inconsistent with VA's goal of 
increasing access to primary and preventive care, but it increases 
expenses over the long run.
  We have concluded that we have crossed the boundaries. We are not 
providing our veterans with sufficient care.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the amendment here in front of me, and I think 
it needs to be commented on that we have increased veterans' medical 
care almost $1.4 billion this year. We increased veterans' medical care 
a $1.7 billion last year. Those are record level increases in veterans' 
medical care, and they were properly appropriated for. These additional 
funds, the $500 million included in he amendment, are not offset.
  There is no source of these funds available to us. In addition, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) provides an additional $35 million 
for medical and prosthetic research.
  We just, last night, added $30 million back into that category for 
research, which was properly offset. The presenter of the amendment 
looked into the budget, found some additional funds, we agreed there is 
a proper use of those funds, and a higher priority went to research.
  I just would restate that I think we have done our job. We have done 
it well within the available funds. If additional funds become 
available later on in the process, we will look at prioritizing those 
also, but I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), he has done very well within the constraints that the 
Republican leadership and the House has put on what we can spend on VA 
health care. The problem is, that the multibillion dollar tax cut for 
the wealthiest one-ten thousandth of 1 percent of families in America 
that we passed 2 weeks ago provides less money for this bill.
  We do have an offset in this bill. We just choose to help 25 million 
veterans get better health care rather than giving 300 of America's 
richest estates a further tax cut, that is a choice we should be 
allowed to make.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?

[[Page 11775]]


  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, is there any time remaining on our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and 
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take more than 30 seconds.
  My friend on the other side has worked diligently. As a matter of 
fact, this is one of the most bipartisan issues that we have, with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards) and the ranking minority on this committee. But I would 
say to my friends, the veterans have served this country, the United 
States of America, and all the citizens made a promise to keep health 
care. Subvention is a pilot program and a Band-Aid. TRICARE, FEHBP, we 
are all working on those in a bipartisan way. But that promise was made 
by all Americans, not just a few families.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment indirectly amends 
existing law. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill, after the last section (before the 
     short title) insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or 
     administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) be allowed to control 5 of the 10 
minutes I have been allotted.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of years particularly, the 
chairman of the subcommittee on VA-HUD has done an admirable job in 
ensuring that additional funds were allocated for the Veterans 
Administration, especially and particularly for veterans health care. 
In spite of his best efforts, however, many veterans in certain parts 
of the country are getting inadequate health care nevertheless. That is 
as the result solely and completely of a program administered within 
the Department of Veterans Affairs known as the Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation program, otherwise known as VERA.
  VERA, in spite of its name, is wholly inequitable. Under VERA, we 
have seen cuts in veterans health care in many parts of the country, 
particularly throughout New England, New York, Pennsylvania, the 
Midwest, the far West, and other places as well. In addition, we have 
seen cuts in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, 
California, in addition to other States.
  This amendment would provide that no money be allowed for the 
administration of this program.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, which I 
offer with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and 
many others. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent 
the VA from using the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation formula, 
known as VERA, to allocate funding to 22 Veterans Integrated Service 
Networks, known as VISNs, throughout the country. Instead, this 
amendment would send the VA back to the drawing board to develop a 
formula which would be truly equitable and which would distribute 
funding across the Nation, so that all of our veterans, regardless of 
where they live, would be provided with the same access to medical care 
based on need.
  Under the current formula, VISN 3, which includes New York and New 
Jersey, has seen its funding cut by over 66 percent since 1997. The 
funding shortfall has hampered VISN 3's ability to provide a full range 
of medical services to veterans.
  For example, look at the VA's VERA-based allocation of funding for 
hepatitis C testing and treatment. The fiscal year 2000 budget provided 
$190 million. The fiscal year 2001 budget under consideration today 
would increase that amount to $340 million.
  Hepatitis C is a growing problem in our Nation, especially among Viet 
Nam-era veterans. It is approaching epidemic proportions in VISN 3 in 
New York and New Jersey, where 26 percent of all veterans tested for 
hepatitis C have tested positive. The VISN needs approximately $10 
million this year just to provide hepatitis C treatment to veterans who 
test positive for the virus and additional funding to pay for testing, 
which can cost between $50 and $200 per person.
  In March, VA Secretary Togo West told the Subcommittee on Veterans 
Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations that he had not spent all of 
the hepatitis C money in the fiscal year 2000 budget because the demand 
was not there. Because this funding is allocated under the VERA 
formula, our area has found itself in need of at least an additional 
$22 million to pay for hepatitis C testing and treatment this year. 
These are for veterans in need.
  Mr. Chairman, because of the skewed distribution of funding under 
VERA, under that formula, we are faced with a system of winners and 
losers. When it comes to providing health care for veterans, there 
should be no winners and losers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, with all respect and deference to my colleague, I rise 
in opposition to this amendment. I rushed to get here, and I have been 
on the floor all day waiting for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation 
system, better known as VERA, was implemented to ensure that VA 
resources followed the veterans who are moving to southern and western 
States. This VERA formula has come under scrutiny many, many times; and 
each time it has come under scrutiny, there was no way to skew the 
figures, because the figures must go wherever the veterans are.
  For a decade and a half, as more and more veterans moved to southern 
and western States, our facilities and our services were overwhelmed by 
the needs of our new veteran arrivals. Even today, our Florida veteran 
facilities are finally beginning to get the resources we need after so 
many years of neglect to care for our ever-growing veterans population. 
VERA has been working well, Mr. Speaker; and our committee knows it has 
been working well because it has been done in a fair and equitable way.

[[Page 11776]]

  In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported that VERA makes 
resource allocations more equitable than the previous system that was 
in effect. In 1998, the PricewaterhouseCoopers accounting firm found 
that VERA was sound in its concepts and methods and that VERA was also 
ahead of other global budgeting systems that are based on historical 
allocations with periodic adjustments.
  Let us face it, Mr. Chairman. Whenever there is an allocation 
formula, everyone cannot be happy. There are two sides of this, but you 
cannot get away from the statistical evidence that is presented through 
these studies. It is obvious that the money goes where the veterans go.
  VERA is constantly being refined. Seven adjustments are being 
implemented in this fiscal year. Florida, the State I represent, the 
State the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) represents, the 
State that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) represents, and 
many of us, we have the second largest population of veterans among the 
50 States. We have 1.7 million veterans, and that is still growing. 
There are over 435,000 veterans in the seven counties of South Florida 
alone, and 48 percent of these veterans are over 65 years of age. 
Forty-eight percent of these veterans are over 65 years of age.
  In fact, the population of veterans over 65 in just these seven South 
Florida counties is greater, and I emphasize greater, than the entire 
populations of veterans over 65 in 40 other States. That is a very 
significant statistic, and I will repeat it: that the population of 
veterans over 65 in just these seven South Florida counties is greater 
than the entire population of veterans over 65 in 40 States.
  I know that some States that are experiencing decreasing veteran 
populations, they are very highly critical of VERA, and well they might 
be; and they have attempted many times to short-circuit VERA in our VA-
HUD bill, and each time I have gone to the floor to really defend our 
system of VERA.
  As one who has lived through base closures and realignment, I know 
how painful it is to close these underutilized facilities. There have 
been claims that the veterans left behind in States that have been 
losing veterans are older and sicker. That is what the other States are 
saying, they are older and sicker. But, by my demonstration here today, 
I have shown you that we have older veterans. These claims are not 
supported by the facts.
  So VERA is statistically sound; it is following the veterans, that 
allocation is. So in view of the overwhelming evidence that VERA is 
targeting VA resources to veteran populations that would need it most, 
and doing so in a fair manner, I strongly oppose this amendment and 
urge my colleagues to do the same, in fairness. Mr. Chairman, it is a 
simple matter of fairness.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey 
amendment. There is nothing fair or equitable about the current VERA 
allocation formula. If you are from the Northeast, if you are from a 
sparsely settled part of the country, like my State, veterans are 
getting the back of hand by the VA. That is what you are getting. There 
has to be a more equitable distribution of funds.
  I will tell Members this, we must have a basic threshold level of 
quality health care for veterans, no matter where they live. They have 
to have adequate facilities, they have to have adequate services, and 
when you have a formula, like VERA strictly distributing funds on a 
population basis, with major outmigration from some areas, with 
sparsely settled populations of veterans in others like Nebraska, our 
veterans are not being treated fairly on VA health care.
  I can tell you what is happening in Iowa and Nebraska, in our area. 
We are being cut dramatically in funds, to the point that veterans are 
not being served in our part of this country.
  This formula has been unfair since it started. They simply will not 
listen to us down there in the Veterans Affairs Department. They simply 
go on and treat us unfairly. It is time to stop the use of this 
inequitable VERA formula. Support the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentlemen from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans 
Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Unfortunately this has 
turned into a regional legislative battle between northeastern states 
and especially low-population Great Plans and Rocky Mountain states' 
delegations on one hand, and the Sunbelt states with larger numbers of 
veterans retirees on the other. Those of us representing the former see 
our veterans left out in the cold while the money flows to the populace 
Sunbelt states. Once again, we may be out-voted but it certainly isn't 
fair to veterans in our states.
  From the time the Administration announced this new system, this 
Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA because of its inherent 
flaws in inequitable distribution of funds, and has supported funding 
levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the President 
recommended.
  Continuing action in previous years this Member has also recently co-
signed a letter to the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and 
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on VA/HUD expressing frustrations 
and concerns with VERA and VISN 14 shortfalls.
  This Member was proud to support the increase in funding Congress 
provided for veterans health care in FY2000. Congress provided $1.7 
billion over the President's request which was far more than ever 
provided for VA health care in one year and the highest level of 
increase over a President's budget request for veterans health care. 
However, the veterans health care system in Nebraska continues to 
experience growing service and funding shortfalls each year even after 
the forced closing of two of our three inpatient facilities, reducing 
the number of full time employees fourteen percent and completing 
integration of all three VA Medical centers. In FY1999, the VISN 14 
area (consisting of Nebraska and Iowa) experienced a $6 million 
shortfall, and in FY2000 the shortfall is $17 million and the project 
shortfall for FY2001 will be between $35 and $45 million. While VISN 14 
continues to experience shortfalls in funding, the number of patients 
continues to increase. Despite the regrettable ruling of non-
eligibility for in-patient care for large numbers of Nebraska veterans, 
the number of patients grew from 59,412 in FY1996 to 75,101 in FY1999.
  Clearly the VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska 
and other sparsely populated areas of the country and on the northeast 
part of our nation. All members of Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman, 
that the VA must provide adequate services and facilities for veterans 
all across the country regardless of whether they live in sparsely 
populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals. The 
funding distribution unfairly reallocates the VA's health care budget 
based strictly on a per capita veterans usage of facilities. There must 
be at least a basic level of acceptable national infrastructure of 
facilities, medical personnel, and services for meeting the very real 
medical needs faced by our veterans wherever they live. There must be a 
threshold funding level for VA medical services in each state and 
region before any per-capita funding formula is applied. That is only 
common sense, but this Administration has too little of that valuable 
commodity when it comes to treating our veterans humanely and 
equitably!
  In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
the Hinchey amendment and fulfill the obligation to provide care to all 
those veterans who have so honorably served our country--no matter 
where they live in this country.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may yield myself 1 minute 
again, I would like to say we cannot base this on opinion. Each of us 
is opinionated because of where we live and the people we serve. We 
must deal with the facts. That is what VERA does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey) was on the floor last year, and it was defeated 
soundly. I have here, Mr. Chairman, several letters, one from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs which I will make part of the Record, 
from Dr. Garthwaite, which indicates that we should not, should not, 
adopt the Hinchey amendment.

[[Page 11777]]

  Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
Basically it aims to dismantle what this House overwhelmingly approved. 
It was one of the most important reforms in the VA health care system.
  VERA is a system for distributing VA health care doctors equitably, 
to ensure that veterans have similar access to care, regardless, 
regardless of the region they live in. Before 1996, when Congress 
directed VA to establish this system, veterans experienced enormous 
disparity in access to care. Veterans who received all needed care from 
VA facilities in New York, for example, found after retiring to Florida 
the VA's doors were closed to them.

                              {time}  1715

  This happened because a system for distributing funds did not take 
into account the demographic changes that occurred.
  According to the General Accounting Office, VA's former allocation 
system not only resulted in unequal access to care, it also encouraged 
inefficiency. GAO cited the need for a system like VERA. So my 
colleagues, the GAO has studied this carefully, and they have cited the 
need for such a system as VERA, which the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) would like to remove and dismantle. Price Waterhouse did an 
analysis of this as well. They validated the methodology that was used 
and indicated that it was sound. VERA recognizes that there is 
variability in labor costs and other factors from region to region and 
makes adjustments accordingly. It is fundamentally a fair system.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not just me speaking. Price Waterhouse has 
validated this system, and GAO cited the very legislation that we 
passed overwhelmingly in the House.
  So as I mentioned earlier, I have this letter from the VA's acting 
Under Secretary of Health who confirms that the VERA system is working 
and that the VA administration itself continues to support it, and I 
will include that for the Record at this time.

                                   Department of Veterans Affairs,


                               Veterans Health Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Stump,
     Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to affirm the Veterans 
     Health Administration's (VHA) continued support for the 
     Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system.
       Implemented in April 1997, the VERA methodology remains an 
     equitable model for distributing funds to the 22 networks. 
     During the past two and a half years independent reviews by 
     the General Accounting Office and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
     have validated the VERA methodology as meeting the intent of 
     Congress. In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP concluded that 
     VERA is ahead of other global health care funding system 
     around the world. In addition to these external VERA 
     assessments, since the beginning of VERA, the VHA has 
     established internal workgroups, comprising clinical and 
     administrative staff from both Headquarters and the Field, to 
     provide input to the VHA Policy Board for VERA refinement and 
     to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the VERA 
     methodology. Ongoing improvements and refinements to VERA 
     continue as issues arise. Refinements that have been 
     identified for the FY 2001 allocation are listed below.
       Non-recurring Maintenance (NRM)--FY 2001 will complete the 
     three-year phase-in of NRM being fully based on patient care 
     workload and the cost of construction using the Boockh Index 
     (a geographically-based, nationwide standard).
       Geographic Price Adjustment (labor index)--A change in the 
     workload factor for computing the labor index that would 
     weight Basic and Complex Care workload consistent with recent 
     costs is under review. A recommendation was presented to the 
     VHA Policy Board in May 2000 and was approved June 15, 2000.
       Research Support--A decision to again pass through research 
     support funds directly to VA medical centers for FY 2001 will 
     be reviewed by the VHA Policy Board in July 2000. A decision 
     on these recommendations will be made subsequent to Policy 
     Board discussion well ahead of the time to allocate FY 2001 
     funding.
       Care Across Networks--A Care Across Networks Workgroup 
     studied the need for a transfer pricing system to cover 
     veterans who receive care outside of their home networks 
     (e.g., northeast networks would reimburse southern networks 
     for the care provided to veterans who travel south in the 
     winter). The group recommended implementation of a default 
     pricing system based on Medicare rates, modification of the 
     current billing system, and preauthorization to ensure that 
     care provided is clinically appropriate. Because concerns 
     were expressed about the adequacy of the infrastructure to 
     handle transfer pricing and possible impediments imposed by 
     preauthorization, VA tested the proposed transfer pricing 
     system. The Workgroup considered several key issues: the 
     impact on improving coordination of care; whether the level 
     of effort to effect transfer pricing is worth the benefit; 
     and the technical and software challenges to implement. A 
     recommendation by the Workgroup not to go forward with 
     transfer pricing in FY 2001 was approved in March 2000. VA 
     will continue to use the existing pro-rated person (PRP) 
     concept to ensure that care across networks is compensated. 
     The default pricing system will be completed and made 
     available to networks that are trying to understand care 
     patterns as well as other issues.
       Additionally, VHA Headquarters has maintained a national 
     reserve fund to assist networks that are experiencing fiscal 
     difficulties. VHA has established a process whereby a 
     network's request for additional funding is first reviewed by 
     a team of VHA field-based managers. The VISN's request and 
     the team's review are then presented to the VHA Policy Board, 
     which in turn makes recommendations to the Under Secretary 
     for Health. Once a final decision is made, the results are 
     communicated to the requesting VISN.
       Enclosed is a chart with text to show that VERA is not 
     moving all networks to an average expenditure per patient, 
     but adjusts network allocations for differences in patient 
     mix, labor costs, research and education support costs, 
     equipment and non-recurring maintenance activities.
       Please note that all major VERA shifts in funding have been 
     completed. Beginning with the FY 2001 VERA distribution to 
     the networks, changes in VISN funding will depend on the 
     following factors:
       The change in the Medical Care Appropriation from one year 
     to the next,
       Each VISN's change in the number and mix of veterans 
     provided care relative to the system-wide change in total 
     veteran patient workload, and
       VERA refinements that may be made during the year.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on VERA.
           Sincerely,
                                        Thomas L. Garthwaite, M.D.
                                Acting Under Secretary for Health.
       Enclosure.
       The chart that follows displays the average VERA price for 
     each network, based on the preliminary FY 2001 VERA 
     Allocation. (It should be noted that these are subject to 
     change; workload data continues to undergo data validation, 
     Specific Purpose funding continues to be reviewed, and final 
     decisions about funding levels are dependent on the 
     Congressional Appropriation.)

 PROJECTED AVERAGE PRICE BY NETWORK-PRELIMINARY FY 2001 VERA ALLOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Percent variation
              Network                  Average Price     from national
                                                            average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05 Baltimore.......................            $5,673             17.74
21 San Francisco...................             5,543             15.04
12 Chicago.........................             5,440             12.90
03 Bronx...........................             5,375             11.56
20 Portland........................             5,023              4.24
22 Long Beach......................             4,978              3.31
02 Albany..........................             4,970              3.14
11 Ann Arbor.......................             4,950              2.74
13 Minneapolis.....................             4,941              2.55
01 Boston..........................             4,936              2.45
National Average...................             4,818              0.00
17 Dallas..........................             4,783             (0.73)
07 Atlanta.........................             4,768             (1.05)
08 Bay Pines.......................             4,657             (3.34)
06 Durham..........................             4,657             (3.36)
10 Cincinnati......................             4,465             (3.60)
15 Kansas City.....................             4,539             (5.80)
19 Denver..........................             4,539             (5.80)
14 Lincoln.........................              4538             (5.81)
09 Nashville.......................             4,471             (7.20)
16 Jackson.........................             4,452             (7.60)
18 Phoneix.........................             4,452             (7.91)
04 Pittsburgh......................             4,433             (8.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The chart shows that total VERA funding for networks is not 
     a simple national average rate, for example, in FY 2001 four 
     networks receive more than 10% above the national average 
     price.
       Since its inception in FY 1997, VERA has been effective in 
     reducing the amount of variation between networks in average 
     cost per patient. In FY96, one network had a 33% variation 
     above the average; in FY99 that variation from average cost 
     per patient was reduced to 22%. At the other end of the 
     specturm. In FY96 there was a network that was 38% below the 
     national average cost per patient; in FY99 this variation had 
     been reduced, so the network with the lowest average cost per 
     patient was 22% below the national average. This has not been 
     an arbitrary movement toward a single national mean; some 
     networks above the national average have appropriately moved 
     even further above the national average due to complexity of 
     their patient population and other workload factors.
       VERA has completed the shifting of dollars among network 
     based on workload, that began in FY 1997. When VERA wa 
     implemented, nearly $500M was identified by the VERA model as 
     needing to be shifted among

[[Page 11778]]

     networks; in the FY 2001 allocation, there are no dollars to 
     remaining by be shifted. All networks are receiving increase 
     to their FY2000 VERA allocation.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we have a similar debate on this amendment 
last year when the gentleman offered it. I urge the gentleman not to 
dismantle a system that is working for the veterans in this country. I 
also note that the VA maintains a reserve fund to handle the kind of 
problems that the gentleman has raised, and I am sure others will raise 
from the northeast. In fact, the New York/New Jersey Network received 
$60 million last year from that reserve fund that was set up just to 
handle problems that they are going to get on the floor and talk about.
  For those areas of the country that have legitimate funding problems, 
there is this safety mechanism with the reserve fund. We need not and 
should not, I say to my colleagues, take the extreme step that the 
gentleman proposes. Adopting the Hinchey amendment would hurt veterans 
all across this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I would merely say that Congress enacted 
VERA for a very simple reason: equity. No matter where they live or 
what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve to have equal access 
to quality health care.
  The author of this amendment argues that the veterans in New York are 
not being treated equitably. VERA takes all of that into consideration, 
and under VERA, veterans in the metropolitan New York area will receive 
an average of $5,339 per veteran patient. That is 16 percent-plus 
higher than the national average. The Florida VISN will receive $4,485 
per patient under VERA, an average payment that is 2.5 percent below 
the national average. Certainly we should ask ourselves how is this 
unfair to New York veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment 
which would prohibit the use of VA funds to further implement the 
Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation system.
  VERA, as it is called, corrects historic geographic imbalances in 
funding for VA health care services and ensures equitable access to 
care for all veterans.
  Florida has the second largest veterans population in the country 
with 1.7 million veterans. Approximately 100 veterans move to Florida 
every day. Since coming to Congress, I have heard from veterans who 
were denied care at Florida VA medical facilities. In many instances, 
these veterans had been receiving care at their local VA medical 
center. However, once they moved to Florida, the VA was forced to turn 
them away because the facilities in our state simply did not have the 
resources to meet the high demand for care.
  This lack of adequate resources is further compounded in the winter 
months when Florida veterans are literally crowded out of the system by 
individuals who travel south to enjoy our warm weather.
  It is hard for my veterans to understand how they can lose their VA 
health care simply by moving to another part of the country or because 
a veteran from a different state is using our VA facilities.
  Congress enacted VERA for a very simple reason: equity. No matter 
where they live or what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve 
to have equal access to quality health care.
  Since VERA's implementation, the Florida Veterans' Integrated Service 
Network (VISN) has experienced a forty percent increase in its 
workload. The Florida network estimates that it will treat a total of 
300,000 veterans by the end of Fiscal Year 2000.
  The Florida network has also opened 18 new community based outpatient 
clinics since VERA's implementation. It plans to open additional 
clinics in the near future. None of this could have happened without 
VERA.
  The author of this amendment argues that veterans in New York are not 
being treated equitably. The VERA system already takes regional 
differences into account by making adjustments for labor costs, 
differences in patient mix and differing levels of support for research 
and education.
  According to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA facilities in 
the metropolitan New York area will receive an average of $5,339 per 
veteran patient. This means that these facilities will receive an 
average payment for each patient that is 16.07 percent higher than the 
national average. On the other hand, the Florida VISN will receive 
$4,485 per patient--an average payment that is 2.5 percent below the 
national average. How is this unfair to New York veterans?
  VERA ensures that veterans across the country have equal access to VA 
health care and that tax dollars are spent wisely. If the Hinchey 
amendment passes, continued funding imbalances will result in unequal 
access to VA health care for veterans in different parts of the 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that this is not a regional argument. The issue is bureaucratic 
bungling by computer. If your area is not being hurt today, it most 
certainly will be tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Hinchey-
Frelinghuysen amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  We want to suspend the VERA program. It is not working, and it is 
certainly not working for New Jersey. We are the only VISN to lose 
money. It is unacceptable to the veterans in New Jersey. It is 
unacceptable to me.
  According to this year's bill, our VISN will receive $22 million less 
than we did in fiscal year 1999, and $14 million less than we did in 
fiscal year 2000. In fact, when we consider the supplemental 
appropriation, New Jersey will receive $52 million less than we 
received for the entire fiscal year 2000.
  This is not a question of making everybody happy, this is a question 
of equity. The program is not working. What we are going to do is wedge 
one veterans' group against the other. That is not acceptable to us in 
New Jersey, and I am sure to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) 
and to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), it is not 
acceptable to them as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the 
Hinchey, Frelinghuysen amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  The amendment is simple, it suspends the VERA program. What we need 
to do is go back to the drawing board and come up with a program that 
is fair to ALL veterans.
  In Fiscal Year 2000, Congress provided $1.7 billion more for 
veteran's medical care. Yet, in New Jersey we lost $36 million in 
funding.
  We were the only VISN to lose money. It is unacceptable to the 
veterans of New Jersey. It is unacceptable to me.
  According to this year's bill, our VISN will receive $22 million less 
than we did in Fiscal Year 1999 and $14 million less than we did in 
Fiscal Year 2000!
  In fact, when we consider the supplemental appropriation we received 
this year, New Jersey will receive $52 million less than we received 
for the entirety of Fiscal Year 2000. This is a disgrace.
  And that is because of VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource 
Allocation program, which redirects money from some regions of the 
country to pay for veterans who live in other parts of the country.
  Our veterans deserve better.
  The fact is that the VERA system is not equitable to all veterans. 
This amendment sends the message that VERA is not working. The VA 
should develop a truly equitable plan.
  Members of the military have put themselves at great risk to protect 
American interests around the world. In return for this service, the 
federal government has made a commitment to both active duty and 
retired military personnel to provide certain benefits.
  Our veterans helped shaped the prosperity our nation currently 
enjoys. It is OUR duty to ensure that commitments made to those who 
served are kept.
  The VERA system is simply not working.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the dean of the New York Congressional 
Delegation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in strong 
support of the Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment prohibiting funds from 
being used

[[Page 11779]]

to implement VERA, the Veterans Equity Resource Allocation system, 
which was created to correct an inequity in the manner in which 
veterans' health care funds were being distributed across the country. 
While conceived as a sound effort, VERA was fundamentally flawed in 
that it did not look at the quality of care being delivered to veterans 
in any given region. Moreover, it also failed to consider the effect of 
regional costs in providing health care.
  Under VERA, the watchword was efficiency: deliver the most care at 
the least cost. While ideal for outpatient care, VERA has unfairly 
penalized those VISNs that provide vital services such as substance 
abuse treatment, services for the homeless, veterans' mental health 
services, and spinal cord injury treatments. Under VERA, those services 
are all deemed too expensive and inefficient.
  VERA was implemented at a time when the VA budget was essentially 
flat lined. VISN directors were not provided additional funds to offset 
the cost of annual pay raises for VA staff and annual medical inflation 
costs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
has expired.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  This was not a problem for those directors of VISNs who received 
money under VERA. However, for those directors of VISNs that were 
losing money under VERA, it was a double hit that crowded out 
additional funds needed for other vital services.
  It is commendable that the subcommittee was able to find an 
additional $1.3 billion for veterans' medical care. Yet, due to VERA, 
very little of that money is going to find its way to the Northeast 
where it is vitally needed. Instead, it will be sent to those VISNs 
that have already seen increases.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Hinchey-
Frelinghuysen amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez).
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I very seldom come down here to remark on 
some of these, and the reason is that most of us have made up our minds 
already and nobody is going to convince us to change.
  Let me give my colleagues some information. If my colleagues think 
that reforms have been instituted recently in veterans' health 
services, they are wrong. In L.A. they have caused nothing but 
disruption. You have closed offices where people need the offices, and 
in L.A. the transportation problem there is terrific. There are log 
jams all the time. Veterans have a hard time, some of them unable to 
drive, and especially those with mental services needs have a hard time 
getting to the centers as it is now. So you close some. Then you close 
administrative offices and move them to Phoenix, Arizona, when the 
population is in L.A.
  What is the matter with you in this reform. You need to open your 
eyes and see that there is something very, very wrong with the reform. 
In other words, the cure is worse than the illness, and veterans are 
not getting the attention they need. I am sorry if my colleagues cannot 
see that, but they ought to realize it; they ought to take a better 
look. My colleagues ought to go back to their districts and talk to 
their veterans and ask them if they are getting the services they need, 
because they are not.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in strong 
support of the Hinchey amendment. I think the bottom line that we have 
heard from both sides, and there should not be any arguments here, is 
that we are supposed to take care of our veterans. I have been out to 
my VA hospital, and let me tell my colleagues, they have cut the budget 
as far as they can go. Yes, a lot of my veterans do go to Florida. That 
is where they are part of the time of the year. But they are still 
using the services in my North Port hospital.
  This should not be a fight among colleagues. We are supposed to take 
care of our veterans. That is the bottom line. We have made promises to 
our veterans. This should not even be a budget fight.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hinchey amendment; and we should 
certainly, in the future, start allotting more money for our veterans 
to take care of them. We, the government, made a promise to our 
veterans: you serve this country and we will take care of you.
  Well, I am embarrassed to say that the 3\1/2\ years that I have been 
here, we have not kept that promise to our veterans; and as a nurse, I 
can tell my colleagues, they know it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In closing, I would just say to my colleagues that this is not a 
regional issue, this is an issue that affects veterans coast to coast, 
as we have seen in the arguments that have been presented here this 
evening. If it happens that one's particular district or one's 
particular State is not adversely affected at this particular moment, 
it will be shortly.
  Mr. Chairman, this formula has got to change. Please support the 
amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment, which 
would block the continued implementation of the VERA system, a change 
which would cripple the VA. An identical amendment was offered last 
year and failed on a vote of 158-266.
  On April 1, 1997, the VA began to implement the VERA system, which 
allocates health care resources according to numbers of veterans in 
each of 22 regional VISNs (Veterans Integrated Service Networks). The 
Hinchey amendment would jeopardize health care in a majority of VA 
networks by blocking continued implementation of this system.
  Before VERA, funds were allocated according to the historical usage 
of VA facilities, adjusted annually for inflation. When veterans 
migrated to the West and the South, funding continued to be 
concentrated in the Northeast. The VERA system directly matches 
workloads with annual allocations, taking into account numbers of basic 
and special care veterans, national price and wage differences, and 
education and equipment differences. More efficient networks have more 
funds available for local initiatives and less efficient networks have 
an incentive to improve. Some regions do see a substantial change in 
their health care allocations under VERA, but all VA network 
administrators agree that this reform is crucial to the sustainability 
of VA programs.
  The amendment proposes to prohibit funding for the VERA allocation 
model, creating a significant question about what model the VA would 
use instead. Presumably, the authors of the amendment would support a 
return to the allocations of FY96. When FY00 levels are compared to FY 
96 allocations, such an adjustment would mean that 20 of 22 VISNs would 
lose money.
  Some areas would be particularly devastated by such a reallocation: 
the Pacific Northwest would be cut 24 percent, the Southeast would be 
cut 14 percent, the Southwest would be cut 15 percent. To restore 
funding for these 2 VISNs at FY96 levels, all 20 other VISNs would take 
an approximate hit totaling $132 million. If VA was forced to recompute 
allocations according to the old model, the cuts would be even more 
severe. The two VA medical centers I represent would see their budget 
cut by more than $9 million this year if we restored the old formula.
  Such a budget hit would cripple the vast majority of VISNs across the 
country. VERA is working--of the 22 VISNs, only ONE, in the Bronx, saw 
its overall allocation decrease from FY99 to FY00. I believe that we 
should encourage the VA to continue moving forward with this successful 
initiative. Please join me in opposing the Hinchey Amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, we in Florida, we have visual acuity, I want to let my 
colleagues know. We can see, and when we see, we can read these 
numbers, Mr. Chairman. We have the numbers. There is no question about 
it, we all want veterans served. But should we yield because we have to 
satisfy one part of

[[Page 11780]]

the Nation? We have to satisfy all of the veterans.
  Vote against the Hinchey amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey 
Amendment to suspend the Department of Veterans' Affairs misguided 
Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) plan.
  The VERA plan takes scarce resources away from the veterans in my 
district and other areas of the Northeast based on flawed data about 
veteran populations around the country.
  The veterans who use the VA health care system in New York deserve 
better than the VERA plan gives them. Each year, about 150,000 veterans 
use the eight VA facilities in the New York Metropolitan region. These 
veterans have come to rely on the excellent services provided by these 
facilities, and the cuts in these services under VERA have been 
disastrous.
  Since the implementation of VERA began, I have received reports from 
many veterans in my district of diminished quality of care at VA 
medical centers. In fact, the VA's own Office of the Medical Inspector 
investigated the Hudson Valley VA hospitals and found more than 150 
violations of health and safety rules at those hospitals alone. It is 
not a coincidence that these violations came at a time when these 
hospitals were trying to cut costs to comply with VERA.
  And the situation is getting worse. The service network that serves 
New York and New Jersey will receive a cut of over $40 million. This 
means the quality of care will suffer and more services will be cut as 
hospitals and clinics face even more reductions in force. All of our 
veterans, regardless of where they live, deserve better.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to provide services to growing 
veterans populations in other regions of the country, but that must not 
be done at the expense of New York's veterans. An assessment of the 
VERA plan by Price Waterhouse highlighted a major flaw in the 
fundamental assumptions of the plan. The report stated that ``basing 
resource allocation on patient volume is only an interim solution 
because patient volume indicates which veterans the VHA (Veterans 
Health Administration) is serving, not which veterans have the highest 
care needs.'' This is especially relevant to the New York region, which 
has the highest proportion of specialty care veterans in the country.
  We cannot turn our backs on our proud veterans, but that is exactly 
what will happen if we allow VERA to continue. I urge my colleagues to 
treat our veterans with the dignity and the respect they deserve. 
Support the Hinchey Amendment.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the 
Hinchey amendment.
  Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have 
witnessed the results of cuts that have effectively removed nearly $300 
million from the lower New York area veterans network.
  VERA is fundamentally flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's 
methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new 
spending plan.
  Our veteran's network has the oldest veterans population, the highest 
number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, the highest number of 
veterans suffering from mental illness, the highest incidence of 
hepatitis C in its veterans population, and the highest number of 
homeless veterans. It is inconceivable and intolerable that the VA 
would continually reduce our regions funding.
  VISN 3 has required reserve funding for the last 3 years because our 
veterans hospitals keep running out of money. In this fiscal year, VISN 
3 required $102 million in reserve funding. In the next fiscal year it 
expects to request even more. When will we realize that the VA should 
fund our hospitals properly the first time and leave reserve funds for 
emergencies?
  I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment and make the investment in our veterans hospitals necessary 
to keep our promise to our veterans. The veterans of this Nation gave 
their best for us. Now we need to do our best for them.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment. My home state of Florida has 1.7 million veterans and serves 
as home to thousands more during the busy winter season. Given the age 
and special needs to this population, many of these men and women 
require extensive medical attention.
  The lack of timely, quality health care for our veterans has reached 
a crisis point across the country, but the problem is particularly 
acute in southwest Florida. Every year more and more veterans flock to 
Florida to enjoy their golden years; and every year the veteran clinics 
and hospitals in my state are hard pressed to meet the demand. Sadly, 
the need far exceeds our resources in southwest Florida. Veterans 
routinely wait months--and sometimes over a year--just to get an 
appointment for something as simple as vision and hearing care. This is 
an unacceptable way to treat those who served our country honorably.
  VERA begins to address this injustice by allocating funds according 
to the number of veterans having the highest priority for health care. 
VERA is a fair and just system: it puts the money where the vets are. 
This is straightforward, commonsense policy. I urge my colleagues to 
reject the Hinchey amendment and support a fair and equitable policy of 
providing for our veterans.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frelinghuysen/
Hinchey amendment to prohibit the VA from distributing health care 
funds through the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) 
formula.
  As I have said many times in the past, VERA has negatively impacted 
the VA's ability to meet the health care needs of veterans in the 
Northeast.
  I understand that VERA has benefitted certain regions of the country, 
but the level of care in those regions has been raised at the expense 
of Northeast veterans. The situation continues to get worse, not better 
for the 150,000 veterans in Maine.
  Veterans in my district rely on Togus VA hospital in Augusta. Those 
veterans who are treated at Togus cannot say enough about the quality 
of care. There is no question about it, if you can get in to see a 
doctor, the care is exceptional.
  The Doctors and nurses have dedicated their careers and lives to 
serving this population and recognize the unique care veterans need.
  But Mr. Chairman, Togus is located within VISN1. Despite this bill's 
$1.35 billion increase in the fiscal year 2001 VA health care budget, 
VISN 1 will only receive a $15 million increase.
  Togus alone already has a $9 million shortfall in Fiscal Year 2000. 
There is clearly a need for increased funding, and yet VISN 1 is one of 
only two VISNs that has lost funding since 1996 when VERA was 
implemented.
  While the quality of medical care remains high, budget constraints 
have forced Togus to reduce staff, causing severe strains on access to 
care, as well as staff morale.
  The excessive waiting time makes it difficult to enroll new patients. 
Because funding increases through VERA are tied to the number of 
patients seen, veterans in the Northeast regions are put at an 
automatic disadvantage.
  I am told over and over by the VA Undersecretary for Health, Dr. 
Thomas Garthwaite, that the VERA numbers work out. I am told that each 
VISN receives the appropriate amount of money to cover its costs.
  Mr. Chairman, the numbers are not working out. The former Acting 
Director of VISN 1 recently said that over the past few years equipment 
and construction funds were used to supplement funds for direct medical 
care.
  VERA simply does not provide the means to cover the facility costs of 
hospitals in the Northeast and still provide quality care.
  Recently, two Boston VA hospitals, West Roxbury and Jamaica Plain, 
began to consolidate their operations. However, there is no money to 
complete this kind of transition without affecting the care to 
veterans.
  Because Boston serves as the major surgical center for the VISN, the 
patient population of the whole region is going to suffer. The VISN 
does not have the $40 million required to complete this process 
smoothly.
  The cost of providing health care in aging facilities is not 
adequately accounted for in VERA. The formula must be reexamined.
  I am tired of hearing, ``the numbers work out.'' Anyone who visits 
Togus, or any hospital in the Northeast will clearly see that it is not 
working out for those veterans seeking care.
  There is simply no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for the hurdles our veterans 
must now face to access high quality health care. We need to make a 
greater commitment to funding veterans' health programs and we must 
find a new and better way to direct those resources to those in need.
  This Congress' fixation on hugh tax cuts for the wealthy is 
endangering funding for veterans programs, for housing and for other 
domestic programs.
  We must get our priorities straight, and keep our promise to the 
veterans in this country. Support the Frelinghuysen/Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment to change the VERA formula and return to an obsolete methods 
of allocating veterans funding in this nation.

[[Page 11781]]

  VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system is one of the 
smartest, fairest, and simplest things we've done at VA.
  What we did with VERA is very straight forward. We discovered that a 
lot of our older veterans are moving from places up North like 
Pennsylvania and Ohio and moving to warmer spots like Florida and 
Arizona. In my own district and in my home state of Florida we have 
seen an explosive growth in the number of senior citizen veterans 
living in our communities who requires resources. While in some 
Northern states we have VA hospitals that used to serve a lot of 
veterans 20 years ago that are now abandoned because of declining 
veterans populations in those areas. The demographic evidence is very 
clear.
  So Congress decided to put VERA in place to more equitably distribute 
VA health care dollars so that the money goes to where the veterans 
actually are and not where the abandoned buildings are. This 
``radical'' concept is fair and it's working, so I guess if you're a 
little cynical of Washington, it's no wonder that some people want to 
get rid of it now.
  VERA has meant a marked improvement for our veterans in Florida. 
Working closely on the 2000 Census I recognize that VERA is just one 
part of the larger issue of re-allocating federal resources based on 
our nation's changing demographics. For instance, my district and state 
have similar issues with all senior citizens relating to the Older 
Americans Act which also attempts to shift some federal funding based 
on changing demographic patterns.
  Just as Florida and Texas and some other growing states may gain 
Congressional seats in re-apportionment while some states lose seats 
because of population changes, so too must veterans funding follow the 
population. I know it's hard for my colleagues on the other side of 
this issue to see federal funds or Congressional seats go elsewhere and 
I don't begrudge them for fighting for the amendment, but VERA is 
fundamentally fair and it's the right thing to do.
  VERA also helps force VA to cut waste and inefficiency. The 
Government Accounting Office (GAO), Congress' non-partisan 
investigative agency, recently reported that VA is wasting almost $1 
million per day maintaining and heating empty obsolete VA facilities, 
$1 MILLION PER DAY, almost all of it in the Northeast and Midwest. GAO 
also reported that there are over 30 obsolete VA hospitals with only 
20-40 patients.
  Mr. Chairman, we're moving to a period of completely different health 
care needs for our aging veterans population, away from the 1950's 
hospital system and to a system of outpatient care and long term 
nursing home care. The number of veterans being treated in hospitals 
has gone down 60% while the outpatient visits have skyrocketed. VERA 
helps get us there by shutting down obsolete hospital facilities and 
freeing up those resources to build clinics that are closer and more 
accessible to veterans and pay for the doctors and pharmacists to staff 
those clinics.
  Mr. Chairman, keeping money locked up in obsolete facilities, serving 
needs that don't exist for a population that has moved elsewhere is 
wrong. I urge my colleagues to keep VERA intact and, vote against this 
harmful amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation is anything but what its 
name indicates. VERA is not equitable. In fact, it has had a disastrous 
effect on veteran health care in New Jersey.
  VERA was intended to direct VA health resources to the areas with the 
highest veteran population. However, the VERA equation fails to 
calculate the level of care required by the patients.
  Well intended? Yes. Well thought-out? Not in the slightest, Mr. 
Chairman.
  VISN 3, of which my district is a part, has the second oldest veteran 
population in the country. Clearly, these veterans have the greatest 
need for medical care and pay the highest health care costs of all 
veterans. Without this amendment, they will suffer across the board 
cuts in all of their programs.
  While I appreciate the fact that after years of shortchanging 
veterans' health services, the President has finally proposed a budget 
that increases funding for veteran's health care. However, that 
increase will provide no additional benefits to the veterans in my 
state.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time to end the inequity. Not only is the level of 
support provided to New Jersey veterans unfair, it is jeopardizing 
their health care. Lyons Medical Center has closed its emergency room. 
East Orange VA hospital has closed its pharmacy. There have been round 
after round of RIFs in New York and New Jersey's veteran hospitals.
  VERA is a failure! I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. 
Send the VA back to the drawing board and tell them to come up with a 
system that meets the needs of ALL veterans. Our veterans deserve no 
less.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment offered by my colleague from New York, which would impose 
a one-year moratorium on the VA's implementation of the ``Veterans 
Equitable Resource Allocation.'' VERA, as this funding mechanism is 
known, was instituted in 1997 as a way to distribute VA resources 
fairly across the country. But the outcomes since then have not been 
equitable.
  The VERA formula punishes regions like the Northeast and Midwest by 
calculating need solely on the basis of the number of veterans served--
without any regard for the type of individualized or specialized care 
given to these patients. Veterans in the New York/New Jersey area 
(which makes up Veterans Integrated Service Network or VISN 3 in my 
district) for example, are older than former service men and women in 
other parts of the country. Because age is usually accompanied by more 
severe health problems, these veterans often require more extensive--
and therefore more expensive--care than veterans elsewhere.
  In addition, New York/New Jersey veterans have a higher-than-average 
incidence rate of Hepatitis C (HCV) and AIDS, which we all know are 
very costly treatments. As the VA continues to make HCV diagnosis and 
treatment a priority--which it should--the costs associated with these 
procedures will rise. A March, 1999 one-day prevalence study found that 
six percent of veterans who were tested for Hepatitis C tested 
positive; in VISN 3 that number was 13 percent--almost double the 
national rate. And the going rate for one Hepatitis C treatment cycle, 
for one patient, is between $15,000 and $20,000. Yet the VERA formula 
does not factor this treatment cost into its allocation.
  Finally, with the migration of veterans to the Sunbelt, those 
remaining in regions like the Northeast and Midwest often lack the 
money, if not physical condition, to move to a warmer climate. VERA 
should not penalize these neediest of veterans for remaining where they 
are.
  Mr. Chairman, the VERA issue is more than just abstract numbers and 
percentages on paper. For regions like VISN 3, the Veterans Equitable 
Resource Allocation formula has not been equitable, and it has resulted 
in serious delays in health care delivery for area veterans. It has 
also forced these veterans to live under the fear that crucial 
specialty services offered by facilities like the VA clinic in Brick, 
New Jersey--located in my district--could be slashed. This nearly 
happened two years ago, when the VA responded to VERA-imposed budget 
cuts by seeking to close the clinic. I am still grateful for the 
efforts of Monmouth and Ocean County veterans who fought side by side 
with me to keep the facility open. If the Brick clinic were unable to 
provide rheumatology, podiatry, and a range of other services, these 
veterans would have had to take much longer drives for desperately 
needed treatment.
  As the vice chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have 
questioned VA officials about the VERA system, and the explanations I 
have received are not satisfactory. The solution is to adopt the 
Hinchey amendment and force the VA to halt the VERA formula, so that we 
can measure the full impact of this questionable system on veterans 
nationwide.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment. This amendment will stop implementation of VERA, 
the VA's allocation formula, and send it back to the drawing board so 
the VA can create a funding formula that is fair to every veteran in 
every state.


                             vera is unfair

  VERA unfairly pits veteran against veteran for the desperately needed 
health care services depending on which state they live in. Under VERA, 
even with the historic $1.7 billion for veterans' health care provided 
last year, VISN 3, which encompasses New Jersey and New York was cut by 
$33 million.
  Let me give you another example of how unfair VERA truly is. VISN 3 
has the second highest rate of Hepatitis C in the nation. But because 
of VERA, our veterans will not receive any money to combat the disease.
  How is this fair? How is this equitable? New Jersey has one of the 
oldest veterans' populations and the highest number of special needs 
veterans. The funding reduction caused by VERA is taking a tragic toll 
on the veterans of New Jersey and the Northeast.


            health services in new jersey are being reduced

  To save money, the VA has cut back on numerous services for veterans 
and instituted various managed care procedures that have the impact of 
destroying the quality of care the veterans receive. For instance, the 
VA has reduced the amount of treatment offered to

[[Page 11782]]

those who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and reduced 
the number of medical personnel at various health centers.
  As a result of these cuts, there has been erosion of confidence 
between veterans and the VA. I can not describe the anger and pain I 
see in the faces of veterans in my district because of the reduction in 
health services. This erosion threatens to destroy the solemn 
commitment that this nation made to its veterans when they were called 
to duty.
  We can not allow the VA to use VERA to save money by destroying the 
health care of veterans in New Jersey. We can not allow the VA to use 
VERA to use managed care to reduce quality. And we can not allow the VA 
to use VERA to close veterans' hospitals just because they are within 
sixty miles of each other.


                               conclusion

  The bottom line is: VERA is unacceptable and must change to a fairer 
more equitable system.
  Let me state as firm as possible: There can be no compromise when it 
comes to veterans' health care. The promise made to veterans must be 
kept. We must do everything in our power to ensure that veterans 
receive the best health care possible.
  Defending the Constitution of the United States on foreign soil is 
the greatest duty the nation can ask of its citizens. Our veterans 
answered the call to duty and performed it to the highest standard. We 
must keep our promise to our veterans regardless if they live in 
Florida, Texas, Maine or New Jersey. I believe a veteran is a veteran, 
period. The VA must have the same view. I strongly urge you to support 
this important amendment. Thank you.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this amendment. I understand the goal of VERA is to distribute money 
according to the number of veterans using veterans facilities, but it 
doesn't take into consideration the basic overhead expenses of 
operating medical care facilities in rural, less populated states.
  Despite the fact that Congress has fully funded the President's 
request for the VA next year, at least four VISNs are projecting 
serious shortfalls. One of these VISNs, VISN 14, which includes Iowa 
and my home state of Nebraska, is projecting a $40-40 million 
shortfall.
  Although Congress has increased the VA's budget 23.5 percent since 
Fiscal Year 1996, VISN 14 has only received a 6.2 percent increase--
less than the cost of medical inflation. These shortfalls will continue 
until we are able to find a fairer way to allocate funds.
  I believe VISN 14 has taken significant steps to lower costs--in 
fact, despite the increase in patient load of 26 percent, VISN 14 has 
closed two inpatient facilities and the number of full time employees 
has dropped 16 percent. Unfortunately, these changes will not save 
enough to make up for the large projected shortfall.
  Mr. Chairman, when the VA closed the Grand Island inpatient wards, I 
was assured that the VA would use the money saved to improve services 
to Nebraska's veterans, but the opposite has been true--services have 
gotten worse. Many veterans in my district are forced to travel 
hundreds of miles to receive the care they were promised. Veterans 
often wait weeks or even months for appointments to see VA doctors. 
This is unacceptable. Eligible veterans should have reasonable access 
to VA facilities no matter where they live.
  I urge a yes vote on this amendment.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey to basically gut the present veterans' 
medical fund allocation system Congress established a little over three 
years ago. The reason we established the so-called VERA or Veterans 
Equitable Resource Allocation was to correct the arbitrary funding for 
veterans' medical care in various parts of the United States. As the 
name says, it is about equitable resource allocation--it is about 
fairness and putting and the health care money where the veterans are.
  My veterans in Alabama deserve the same adjusted basic per capital 
funding as any other part of this country, not more and certainly not 
less. I don't know how anyone could object to that.
  But here's what we should object to: having unneeded VA hospitals in 
a number of large metropolitan areas, including New York and Chicago. 
Hearings by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, which I 
chair, established that the VA is wasting more than a million dollars a 
day by operating unneeded buildings and facilities. Personally, I think 
that number is underestimated,. but that is what the General Accounting 
Office reported, and the VA did not deny it.
  Any way you look at it, a million dollars a day is a lot of waste. We 
shouldn't be supporting waste by sending extra money to certain areas 
to support unneeded VA facilities. That's what this amendment would do. 
We should be encouraging the efficient expenditure of veterans' health 
care dollars. Taxpayers want the men and women who have served their 
country in uniform to have quality health care, and they want Congress 
to take care that their money is well spent.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for this amendment is a vote for waste of 
veterans' health care money, pure and simple. It would be a step 
backward that would hurt most veterans by virtue of where they live. I 
urge my colleagues to do right for both veterans and taxpayers by 
defeating it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       Page 90, after line 16, insert:
       Sec. 426. Any limitation in this Act on funds made 
     available in this Act for the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall not apply to--
       (1) the use of dredging or other invasive sediment 
     remediation technologies;
       (2) enforcing drinking water standards for arsenic; or
       (3) promulgation of a drinking water standard for radon
     where such activities are authorized by law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).


        Modification to Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment in accordance with the submission that is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       Page 90, after line 16, insert:
       Sec. 426. Any limitation in this Act on funds made 
     available in this Act for the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall not apply to:
       (1) the use of dredging or other invasive sediment 
     remediation technologies; or
       (2) enforcing drinking water standards for arsenic

     where such activities are authorized by law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to strike from the 
bill language which is antienvironmental in its intention. It is a 
rider which is contrary to environmental protection, which I believe 
has been inappropriately placed in the bill.
  First of all, this language would make it impossible for the EPA to 
conduct activities which are designed to find out what exactly exists 
in certain areas that are contaminated, in river, lakes, streams and 
the oceans in and adjacent to the country.

                              {time}  1730

  The importance of this is simply to discover what threat these 
sediments pose. In many instances, these sediments are cancer-causing 
agents such as polychlorinated biphenyls, heavy metals, and other 
agents.
  The intention of the amendment is to make it impossible for the EPA 
to proceed with its program to remediate these bodies of water, I 
believe, which are in dire need of that remediation. In some cases, 
this situation has been carried on for decades.
  So the purpose of the amendment is to strike that language, and also 
to

[[Page 11783]]

strike language which involves the issue of arsenic in drinking water. 
This language would prevent the EPA from establishing standards with 
regard to arsenic in drinking water.
  I need not point out to the Members of the House that arsenic is 
indeed a particularly vitriolic poison. In fact, it occurs in many 
water bodies and public water supplies in a number of places around the 
country. So the EPA, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect 
public health, the EPA is establishing these standards in order to 
protect the environment, but even more particularly, in order to 
protect public health.
  This language prevents us from dredging and from finding out what is 
in the bottom of water bodies around the country and taking appropriate 
remedial action. It also prevents us from establishing standards with 
regard to arsenic in drinking water.
  I ask the majority of the Members of the House to join me in striking 
this anti-environmental rider from this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that this is an amendment 
that does not do what the author would like it to do. Very simply, the 
author would like to strike language contained in the committee report, 
not in the bill but in the report, dealing with direction to the EPA on 
dredging and in enforcing certain arsenic regulations.
  Although he and others will allege that this language somehow reaches 
in and cancels report language, certainly no reasonable interpretation 
would come to that conclusion. Specifically, the language refers to 
limitations in this Act on funds made available in this Act.
  I would say to the gentleman that there is no limitation in the Act 
on any of the above-mentioned issues. There is in particular no 
limitation of funds in the Act on any of these issues. Moreover, there 
is not even a limitation of funds on either of the issues contained in 
the report language.
  Despite the author's best intentions to somehow link what he would 
hope to accomplish with this language, it plainly and simply cannot and 
does not do what he would like it to do.
  I would like to shift now from a technical interpretation of the 
amendment to specific comments on the issues that the gentleman objects 
to. I will confine my comments to the issue of dredging.
  This is a very controversial issue. The EPA itself, up until just 
recently, had rejected the option of dredging because of the resultant 
pollution downstream from the dredging site. As we all know, when we 
stir up mud in the river, it travels down the current. When there are 
toxins in the mud in the river, they travel with the current, so other 
parts of these rivers would be affected as that dredging began to 
occur.
  The EPA was opposed to dredging for many, many years. Now there has 
been a change of heart and they want to proceed. Mr. Chairman, we all 
agree that the toxins that are in our bodies of water need to be dealt 
with. They need to be dealt with in the safest, most effective ways. We 
do not want our fish and our wildlife and our vegetative growth and our 
fellow human beings poisoned by these toxins.
  But there is much to sit and debate about the best way to deal with 
this. What the report language in this bill suggests is that the 
National Academy of Sciences will come out with a study sometime in 
September. At that point, the EPA will receive some direction in their 
decision-making from the National Academy of Sciences report, and they 
will then incorporate that into their operating plan.
  Once they have accomplished that, they can proceed, so we want them 
to get the benefit of the good science and then incorporate that into 
their plan, and make a good decision and go forward.
  I would just state lastly that this is the last time that this issue 
will be dealt with in this bill because the body of knowledge will be 
available for informed decision-making by the end of this year, so this 
is the last time we will deal with this in this bill.
  I would urge rejection of this amendment. Let us make sure we have 
good science before we proceed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Hinchey-Brown-Waxman amendment.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, 
which has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, I am very 
concerned about the report language of the Committee on Appropriations 
with respect to arsenic.
  The committee report language essentially tells the EPA not to 
enforce current law regarding arsenic. The current standard of 50 parts 
per billion was established in 1975 based on a public health standard 
originally established in 1942. However, arsenic is now understood to 
be much more toxic than we thought it was even 10 years ago.
  In addition to more evidence on skin cancer, sufficient evidence has 
been found to link arsenic to fatal lung and bladder cancers and to 
other organ cancers. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen.
  The EPA is in the process of revising the arsenic drinking water 
standard to be more stringent, but the new standard will not go into 
effect until 2004 at the earliest. It would be irresponsible for 
Congress to instruct the EPA to ignore cases in which drinking water 
supplies do not even achieve the current standards of 50 parts per 
billion.
  This appropriations rider makes a significant change in national 
policy on drinking water, but the Subcommittee on Health and 
Environment, which successfully reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water 
Act just 4 years ago, has not been given the opportunity to review it, 
nor have any bills introduced in this Congress on arsenic in drinking 
water.
  This anti-environment rider in the report is bad procedure and bad 
policy. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and good 
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
would like us to believe that dredging over 1 million tons of sediment 
from the Hudson River, disrupting the recovering ecosystem, releasing 
PCBs downstream, shutting off recreational use of the river, and 
landfilling 85,000 truckloads of dredge material on dairy farms in the 
Upper Hudson region is somehow the only reasonable action to be taken 
in the best interests of New Yorkers in order to remediate the Hudson 
River.
  I would advise the gentleman that neither he nor the EPA should feel 
it necessary nor appropriate to lecture our residents on what is best 
for their communities. I do not believe we should let politics dictate 
our efforts to remediate the Hudson River. Simply put, I want to see 
science and facts applied here.
  Mr. Chairman, the public has lost confidence in the EPA and in this 
endeavor. As the chairman mentions, it has gone on way too long. I have 
brought a couple of charts that will exemplify what we are talking 
about here.
  In the first chart here, the level of 10 exists. These are the past 
dredging experiences that the EPA has conducted. In each of the 
dredging experiences they have conducted the level of 10, which is now 
what the upper Hudson River level is, has been met in their most 
successful operations, meaning that if they dredge now they will have 
to realize unprecedented successes.
  The second chart, using EPA science, shows the three ways, the 
natural recovery, the source control natural recovery, the source 
control dredging recovery, in terms of remediation of the river. If we 
look at those lines, we will

[[Page 11784]]

notice that there is barely a distinction in terms of the kind of 
recovery.
  The EPA has lied to the citizens in the upper Hudson valley. They 
began a covert study to look at landfilling those dredge materials. 
They have lost the confidence of those people in that area.
  As the chairman pointed out, the National Academy of Sciences report 
due out in September needs to be incorporated in so that we have the 
public confidence regained in this endeavor. I urge a no vote, a strong 
no vote in this effort.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me. I strongly rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the concern I have is that we are seeking knowledge and 
seeking better ways to do clean-ups with the National Academy studies. 
On the other hand, we have existing technologies and we have problems 
that are endangering people's health today.
  I think we ought to use the knowledge and technology that is 
available today to help our fellow citizens in cleaning up these 
waterways while we continue to seek better ways to do so. I am very 
concerned about the potential delay.
  I have a similar situation in my own district that has been studied 
for 24 years. One of the elements we have incorporated in the project 
cooperative agreement is a review every 5 years so we can incorporate 
new technologies as they come online, but I think it would be a mistake 
today to delay improvements in cleaning up our waterways that today 
endanger people's health.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the remaining time to close.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
my friend, the gentleman from New York.
  Here we go again. The EPA is rushing to implement a new arsenic 
standard in the water with very little justifiable new scientific 
evidence. They will tell us that the new, more stringent standards of 
our communities will be at risk, and therefore we must plow ahead.
  No one on this floor wants anyone's drinking water to be unsafe. I, 
for one, am not condemning the EPA for setting scientific safe and 
reasonable drinking water standards. But there is a consequence to 
these authoritative actions.
  I oppose the EPA requiring small, rural community water districts to 
spend $10 million to $20 million to comply with the current arsenic 
standards when the EPA is going to mandate an entirely new and more 
stringent standard in January of 2001. This tactic is simply going to 
force small rural water districts to unnecessarily spend millions of 
taxpayer dollars to build a new water treatment facility to comply with 
current standards, and then 6 months later spend an additional $10 
million to $20 million to build an entirely new facility to comply with 
the new EPA standards.
  If the EPA, Mr. Chairman, has its ways, these small communities will 
spend up to $35 million to comply with two separate standards. Would it 
not make sense for communities to build one safe and adequate facility 
that seeks to comply with the new more stringent standard, rather than 
6 months down the road spending an additional $20 million?
  This situation occurs throughout my State, it occurs throughout a 
number of other States. I am sure that there are many communities 
around who are concerned, whether they are small or large, with the 
attempt to have to comply with the current existing arsenic standards, 
facing the new future standards as well.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a wrongheaded tactic. Why 
should any community, large or small, be forced to spend that extra $1 
million? I stand here, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to this amendment. 
We should oppose the Hinchey amendment because it is unnecessary. This 
is a commonsense report language, and in no way ties the hands of the 
EPA. It merely allows communities to concentrate on meeting one arsenic 
standard, build one water treatment facility, and save rural water 
districts millions of dollars in unneeded and duplicative and costly 
regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to oppose the Hinchey 
amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Hinchey amendment and against the rider prohibiting the EPA from 
cleaning up contaminated sediments in our waters.
  This language is simply a delay tactic to protect those who have 
polluted our waterways and do not want to incur the expense of cleaning 
them up. Many of our rivers and lakes are still polluted from years and 
years of toxic chemicals being released into them. The people of New 
York have been waiting for decades. We are not plowing ahead, we have 
been waiting for decades for the EPA to begin the process of cleaning 
up the PCB-polluted Hudson River.
  Now, as the EPA is on the cusp of beginning the clean-up, this 
provision was included in this bill to stall the EPA yet again. While I 
agree that we should make all efforts to ensure that any environmental 
remediation activities are as safe as possible, I do not believe that 
this is the case here.

                              {time}  1745

  Quite frankly, this language is meant to delay action on cleaning up 
the Hudson River by making it more difficult for the EPA to take 
actions in defense of the environment. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the amendment and in favor of finally moving to clean up our 
waterways.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and Representative 
Brown for their leadership on this important issue.
  Once again, we are confronted with a VA-HUD appropriations bill and 
report that contains damaging and mind-boggling antienvironmental 
riders.
  There are two contenders for this year's winner in the category of 
the most outrageous and ludicrous antienvironmental riders. The nominee 
is the language that actually makes it more difficult to clean up PCB, 
and it is competing against an equally nonsensical provision that would 
make it more difficult for EPA to keep arsenic out of drinking water.
  I really am quite mystified at the fact that we are in the middle of 
an election year; and 2 weeks ago, the Republicans bring to the House 
floor a tax break of $20 billion for 400 families. The next week they 
come in with a bill that cuts the funding for nursing home inspections. 
Then tomorrow we are going to have to fight whether we are going to 
continue a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Now they want arsenic 
in our drinking water. What constituents are they appealing to?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment).
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Hinchey amendment and 
express my opposition to the antienvironment provisions contained in 
the bill and its report. It seems as though we go down this road every 
year fighting riders and report language designed specifically to stop 
the Environment Protection Agency from advancing the protection of 
human health and the environment.
  Just a few short weeks ago, the majority claimed to have adopted a 
policy of no antienvironmental riders in appropriations bills. 
Unfortunately for human health and the environment, this is not the 
case. Instead, the majority has determined to place antienvironmental 
provisions in the committee report. This amendment is necessary to undo 
that harm.

[[Page 11785]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned that the report 
accompanying this bill would prohibit EPA from removing contaminating 
sediments from rivers and lakes, even when such removal has been 
thoroughly studied and is the correct response. Contaminated sediments 
possess huge risks to health and the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know there are two sites that drive this issue 
every year which are both heavily contaminated with PCBs.
  This broad language will stop or delay cleanups not only at these two 
sites, but also at 26 other sites in 15 States. It is time to stop 
interfering with EPA protecting human health and the environment. 
Support the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record:

                                                    June 19, 2000.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the organizations listed 
     below, we are writing to you in strong opposition to an anti-
     environmental rider on the FY2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill 
     regarding the Clean Water Act's TMDL program, which may go to 
     the House floor as early as today. Our organizations have 
     consistently opposed all anti-environmental riders, and we 
     urge you to oppose this and other such anti-environmental 
     riders on appropriations bills this year.
       The section of the VA-HUD Sub-Committee report, under EPA-
     Environmental Programs and Management, attempts to use a 
     rider to interfere with EPA's rulemaking process and guidance 
     on the Clean Water Act. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are 
     part of the Clean Water Act's strategy for attaining and 
     maintaining water quality standards in polluted waters. They 
     require that states identify all sources of pollution that 
     impair the uses of waterbodies, such as drinking, swimming or 
     aquatic habitat. Once identified, the TMDL process is a way 
     to ensure that responsibility for reducing pollution is 
     fairly allocated. The conservation community considers this 
     rider an attack on a key opportunity under the Clean Water 
     Act to clean up our nation's waterways. Furthermore, we have 
     serious concerns about Congress' interference with the 
     rulemaking process with a rider.
       Moreover, Committee report language encourages EPA to 
     revoke a clean Water Act guidance document issued by the 
     agency's Region IX related in part to the TMDL program that 
     is deemed by the Committee to be too ``stringent'' for the 
     business community. The Committee's intervention on behalf of 
     polluters and the States to prevent a strong TMDL program by 
     discouraging regional offices from adopting guidance to 
     implement the law is an anti-environmental attack on the 
     Clean Water Act. The Region IX guidance at issue is a 
     clarification of long-standing Clean Water Act legal 
     requirements.
       The provision of the proposed TMDL rule which has generated 
     the most controversy is the silviculture provision. In 
     response to industry and congressional concerns, the U.S. EPA 
     last week announced that the TMDL rule that is expected to be 
     finalized this summer will not include this provision.
       We believe the TMDL program of the Clean Water Act offers 
     the best opportunity to clean up our nation's polluted waters 
     comprehensively and equitably. We urge you to uphold the 
     interests of the Clean Water Act and the value of the TMDL 
     program by opposing this rider.
           Sincerely,
         Elizabeth McEvoy, Center for Marine Conservation; Daniel 
           Rosenberg, Natural Resources Defense Council; Ted 
           Morton, American Oceans Campaign; Paul Schwartz, Clean 
           Water Action; Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited; James S. 
           Lyon, National Wildlife Federation; Rick Parrish, 
           Southern Environmental Law Center; Nina Bell, Northwest 
           Environmental Advocates; Ann Mills, American Rivers; 
           David Anderson, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Jackie 
           Savitz, Coast Alliance; Barry Carter, Blue Mountain 
           Native Forest Alliance; Norma Grier, NW Coalition for 
           Alts to Pesticides; Daniel Hall, American Lands; Jim 
           Rogers, Friends of Elk River; Bruce Wishart, People for 
           Puget Sound; Jennifer Schemm, Grand Ronde Resource 
           Council; Ric Bailey, Hells Canyon Preservation Council; 
           Steve Huddleston, Central Oregon Forest Issues 
           Committee; Mary Scurlock, Pacific Rivers Council; Mick 
           Garvin, Many Rivers Group, Sierra Club; Francis 
           Eatherington, Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.; James Johnston, 
           Cascadia Wildlands Project; Hillary Abraham, Oregon 
           Environmental Council; Asante Riverwind, Blue Mountains 
           Biodiversity Project; Karen Beesley, Nurse 
           Practitioner; Mettie Whipple, Eel River Watershed 
           Association, Ltd.; John Kart, Audubon Society of 
           Portland; Bill Marlett, Oregon Natural Desert 
           Association; Mr. Benson, Association of Northwest 
           Steelheaders; Elizabeth E. Stokey, Organization for the 
           Assabet River; Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts Riverways 
           Program; Pepper Trail, Rogue Valley Audubon Society; 
           Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
           Associations; Ed Himlan, Massachusetts Watershed 
           Coalition; Pine duBois, Jones River Watershed 
           Association; Michael Toomey, Friends of Douglas State 
           Forest; Ellen Mass, Friends of Alewife Reservation.
                                  ____

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                            Sewerage Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 2000.
     Re: Municipalities Support EPA's Revised TMDL Program.
     Hon. Robert A. Borski,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Borski: In August 1999, EPA released 
     proposed regulatory revisions to clarify and redefine the 
     current regulatory requirements for establishing Total 
     Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) 
     Sec. 303(d). Recognizing that the proposed rule has undergone 
     some significant changes in the past year, the Association of 
     Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)--AMSA represents the 
     interests of 246 of the nation's publicly-owned wastewater 
     treatment agencies. Together, AMSA member agencies serve the 
     majority of the sewered population and treat and reclaim more 
     than 18 billion gallons of wastewater every day--supports 
     EPA's efforts to revise the existing TMDL program, as well as 
     its schedule for finalizing the revisions by June 30, 2000.
       AMSA anticipates that the final rule will be a major 
     improvement over the existing TMDL program, which has 
     traditionally focused solely on controlling point sources, 
     i.e., municipalities and industry, rather than developing 
     comprehensive solutions to the nation's water quality 
     problems. During the past 30 years, point sources of water 
     pollution--wastewater treatment plants, industry, and 
     others--have met the challenges of the Clean Water Act to 
     achieve our national clean water goals. The investment in 
     wastewater treatment has revived America's rivers and 
     streams, and the nation has experienced a dramatic resurgence 
     in water quality. However, according to the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 percent of our 
     waters remain polluted--largely by nonpoint source pollution. 
     The situation will not improve until we include all sources 
     in the cleanup equation.
       EPA's revised rule is expected to encourage the development 
     of implementation plans for TMDLs that provide as 
     ``reasonable assurance'' that all source of pollution, point 
     and nonpoint, will be addressed as part of a cleanup plan. 
     Development of implementation plans will ensure that the 
     regulated community and the public have an opportunity to 
     review and understand how the regulatory agencies will 
     respond to local water quality problems. Implementation plans 
     will also help to ensure that municipalities, which hold many 
     of the nation's existing discharge permits, are not forced to 
     remove increasingly minimal amounts of pollutants from their 
     discharge at significant expense, while the major pollution 
     contributions from uncontrolled sources remain unaddressed. 
     Implementation plans, while requiring extra time and 
     resources to develop, will encourage holistic solutions that 
     will meet water quality goals, and will likely save billions 
     of dollars nationwide by ensuring proper expenditure of 
     limited local resources.
       In addition to ensuring more involvement from all sources 
     of pollution, EPA's revised rule is also expected to improve 
     the existing TMDL program in several other areas including:
       Improved ability for the regulated community and the public 
     to review decisions by state and federal regulatory agencies 
     to include or exclude waters on TMDL lists.--Currently, this 
     lack of protocol has led to the listing of many impaired 
     waters based upon outdated or very limited data, with very 
     little ability for public input or review. Requirements to 
     develop and follow these protocols will help to ensure that 
     TMDLs are properly developed using technically-based, 
     scientific approaches, which are supported by data of 
     adequate quality and quantity.
       Allowing new or expanded discharges on impaired waters.--
     Current regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.4 effectively prohibit 
     new discharges to impaired waters during TMDL development. 
     EPA's revised proposal should provide more flexibility for 
     new dischargers, or the expansion of existing discharges 
     during the 8 to 15-year TMDL development process by allowing 
     new or increased discharges where adjustments in source 
     controls will result in reasonable progress toward 
     environmental improvements. Given that 40,000 waters are 
     currently on EPA's impaired waters list, this flexibility is 
     critical if we are to allow for the continued economic 
     viability and growth of our nation.
       Providing more realistic deadlines.--The existing TMDL 
     program is currently being driven by the courts, with 
     extremely ambitious schedules and deadlines for a developing 
     and implementing TMDLs. These deadlines will likely result in 
     poorly developed TMDLs based on little or inadequate data, or

[[Page 11786]]

     grossly simplified TMDLs that fail to address costly 
     implementation issues. EPA's revised rules are expected to 
     allow up to 15 years of develop TMDLs, which will provide a 
     more realistic timeframe to develop and analyze the necessary 
     data needed to properly develop adequate TMDLs.
       While AMSA still has some concerns with EPA's revised rule, 
     we do believe that the program revisions will provide greater 
     clarity concerning the roles and responsibilities of all 
     stakeholders in the TMDL process, and would make significant 
     improvements in our efforts to improve the nation's water 
     quality. We therefore urge you to oppose any legislative 
     efforts tht may interfere with EPA's ability to issue and 
     implement its comprehensive TMDL program revisions.
       If AMSA's staff or member POTWS in your home state can 
     assist you in any way, please call me at (202) 833-4653. 
     Thank you for your consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kirk,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that is 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, for over 25 years, the General Electric 
Company in New York has been thwarting any effort to clean up the 
Hudson River of the tons and tons of PCB they dumped into that river. 
For 20 years, they demanded study after study after study. For 20 
years, they told us the river itself would eliminate the sediments. It 
has been studied. It has been studied and studied and studied to death 
for 20 years. We know that the river itself did not eliminate the 
sediments. We know they must be required to do so.
  The EPA, having finished its findings, is finally requiring GE to 
clean up the crud that they put in the river that is poisoning the 
ability of communities downstream to use the water, to drink the water, 
to use it for other purposes.
  Now we have this language that says, in the interest of General 
Electric, we will tell millions of people you cannot clean up your 
water. This language is foul. It is intended to protect the foulness of 
our water. I urge everybody to unfoul it by supporting the Hinchey 
amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there are 14 States, some 
30 sites that will be affected by the language in this amendment, 30 
places around the country which are heavily contaminated with heavy 
metals and toxic contaminants of various kinds which the EPA will not 
be able to investigate, to find out what is there, to develop a 
technology and a program for remediation if this language stays in the 
bill.
  This language is inappropriate in this appropriations bill. It ought 
to be taken out. I ask everyone to join us in support of this 
amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment introduced by my dear colleagues Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Brown and 
Mr. Waxman. This amendment would ensure that this Body does not impose 
limits on the use of EPA funds for dredging or other remediation 
technologies to clean up contaminated sediments in lakes and rivers.
  The Gowanus Canal, located in Brooklyn, New York, is in great need of 
being dredged. Historic industrial uses in and around the canal have 
caused significant amounts of hazardous materials to accumulate at the 
bottom. The shallow depth restricts the use of the canal for navigation 
and commercial purposes. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the 
contaminated sediments represent a continued health threat for the 
natural resources of the area.
  This amendment is about many lakes and rivers around the country and 
their surrounding communities. It is about the economic development and 
prosperity opportunities that can not properly take place in 
contaminated areas. It is about not limiting resources to enforce 
drinking water standards.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not limit the great economic and community 
development possibilities and the restoration of the environment for my 
constituents and for people and communities around the country. 
Limiting those opportunities by limiting resources would be a 
disservice to the people we represent.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure that the 
people we represent have no limits imposed upon their health, and the 
restoration of their lakes and rivers.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against this 
amendment and in favor of the report language included in this bill. As 
a member of the Appropriations Committee and the VA-HUD Subcommittee, I 
support the common-sense approach the Committee has already taken to 
address the problem of contaminated sediments in our rivers.
  Three years ago, Congress directed the EPA not to issue dredging or 
capping regulations until the National Academy of Sciences completes a 
study on the risks of such actions. Qualified scientists are working to 
finish this report to determine the best way to clean up rivers with 
minimal impact to the surrounding environment. This has been an open 
process, allowing input from the public, environmental organizations, 
and from the EPA itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is an environmentally sensitive 
issue, and it is important that most qualified, independent scientists 
weigh in on this regulation. This is why I support the existing 
language, which directs the EPA not to act prematurely and wait until 
the NAS study is complete. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement that we reached earlier in the 
day, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) only 
for purposes of discussing his amendment No. 7.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
and will briefly discuss an amendment that was subject to a point of 
order and, therefore, legislating on appropriations bill, and I could 
not offer it.
  This body just decided to go forward and fund a Space Station that is 
$90 billion overbudget. Now, if this body is going to proceed with that 
kind of decision, I would hope that they would do it prudently and with 
our taxpayers in mind and with science at the forefront. My amendment 
would simply say get the Russians out of the critical path and build it 
with the American interests in the forefront.
  Right now, according to this graph, this is the pie graph of how the 
Space Station is built. The United States funds about 74 percent of it; 
Europe, 11 percent; Canada, 3 percent; Russia has a question mark. Why? 
The General Accounting Office has just come out with a new study saying 
that the Russian participation will cost the American taxpayer $5 
billion in the future because they are not coming forward with their 
money, with their time, with their components. The U.S. taxpayers in 
Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and West Virginia are going 
to have to fund this.
  So I encourage this committee to address this very critical issue and 
get the Russians out of the critical path, get them out of the critical 
path so that they cannot gum up the works and they cannot force the 
American taxpayer to send their hard-earned money over to Russia.
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
yield to me for the second amendment?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indian (Mr. Roemer) for the purpose only of speaking on his amendment 
No. 8.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the other amendment would simply again look 
at the U.S. taxpayers' interest, and it would cap the overall costs of 
the Space Station.
  According to a graph put together by CRS back in about 1988, the 
Space Station took about 4 percent of NASA's budget. So out of an 
overall spending of $13 billion, $13.2 billion, the Space Station 
consumed about 4 percent.
  Today, in the year 2000, that spending level is up to almost 20 
percent of the NASA budget. So NASA is starting to cannibalize, cancel, 
withdraw from,

[[Page 11787]]

and not do some very important scientific projects within the NASA 
budget. That might be Shuttle safety programs, guaranteeing the safety 
of our astronauts. They might be programs to do things faster, cheaper, 
better. They might be space science programs. They may be missions to 
Mars where, according to today's paper, scientists are claiming that 
they have discovered water on Mars. Instead of building a Space Station 
that limits our dreams, why not go beyond that?
  So I would encourage my colleagues, if we are going to build this 
Space Station, do it smartly, do it prudently, do it wisely, and do it 
with the taxpayers' interests in mind. Do not send $5 billion in the 
next couple years to Russia, not our hard-earned money, not our 
families' hard-earned money. These are two steps that the appropriators 
and the authorizers should take to curtail costs of the Space Station 
in the future.
  I would encourage my colleagues not to build it and plow this money 
back into the National Science Foundation, back into NASA, back into 
other good manufacturing programs that keep good high-paying jobs in 
America.
  So with that in mind, I would hope the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh), who I greatly respect, and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) would consider these kinds of amendments next 
year if we are going to go forward with this.
  Get the Russians out of the critical path and also put a cap on the 
Space Station that Mr. McCain has led efforts on in the Senate side. 
The Senate has agreed to do that, but the House has not.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Collins:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used prior to June 15, 2001, for the designation, or 
     approval of the designation, of any area as an ozone 
     nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act pursuant to the 8-
     hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone that was 
     promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on July 
     18, 1997, (62 Fed. Reg. 38,356, p.38855) and remanded by the 
     District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 14, 1999, in the 
     case, American Trucking Ass'ns. v. EPA (No. 97-1440, 1999 
     Westlaw 300618).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and a Member opposed 
each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the EPA had 
unconstitutionally usurped Congress' legislative authority in 
establishing strict new Federal air quality standards. Reasonable 
persons expected the agency to delay further implementation of these 
standards until the Supreme Court rules on the agency's appeal early 
next year. However, the EPA has decided to go forward with the process 
of designating hundreds of new areas in nonattainment status despite 
the legal uncertainty.
  This amendment is simple. It does not affect existing air quality 
standards, nor does it render judgment on new standards. It only 
requires the EPA to postpone further action until the Supreme Court 
issues its final ruling. The only common sense reasonable approach is 
to delay this process until the Supreme Court renders its decision in 
early 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) claim the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), my colleague and neighbor to the east.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment. 
Let me begin by explaining what the debate over this amendment is not 
about. This is not a referendum on the underlying ozone standards. The 
Supreme Court will review those standards later this year. This 
amendment takes no stand on whether those standards should move forward 
or not.
  Second, and even more importantly, this amendment has nothing, 
absolutely nothing to do with whether the Environmental Protection 
Agency can impose sanctions on communities under the 8-hour ozone 
standard. The D.C. Circuit Court decision already prohibits EPA from 
imposing any sanctions before the Supreme Court hands down its 
decision.
  Let me emphasize this again. With or without this amendment, no 
community will lose its highway funding, no community will face new 
restrictions on plant expansions, no community will face any new 
penalty or regulation under the new ozone rules before the Supreme 
Court decision.

                              {time}  1800

  The sponsors of this amendment know that. When I suggested to them 
that statutory language to make it even clearer that the 8-hour 
standard could not be enforced before the Supreme Court rule, the 
sponsors dismissed it, telling me that EPA was already prevented from 
enforcing the new standard.
  So, again, no one should vote for this amendment thinking that it 
will somehow protect their communities from enforcement of the new 
ozone rules before the Supreme Court rules. The lower court has already 
accomplished that.
  So, then, what will this amendment do? This amendment would 
unnecessarily delay implementation of the new ozone standard if, and 
only if, it is upheld by the Supreme Court. This amendment would deny 
the public complete information about air quality by enabling 
communities to pretend that they do not have an air quality problem 
when the data indicate that they do.
  This amendment would slow the cleaning of our Nation's air by short-
circuiting a designation process that has been approved by the D.C. 
Circuit Court. In short, this amendment would undermine and delay 
efforts to clean our Nation's air.
  And why would we undermine clean air efforts? The answers the 
sponsors provide are far from compelling. First, they say that 
continuing with the designation process would cost States and 
localities additional money. That is not the case. Governors will 
submit their designation proposals at the end of this month, long 
before this amendment takes effect.
  Moreover, the data for these proposals comes from existing monitors 
that are already collecting data under the current ozone standard. The 
only remaining costs are marginal. Existing staff at the EPA and the 
State environmental agencies will spend some of their time reviewing 
the proposals and reacting to EPA's decisions.
  There is no cost issue here. Voting for the amendment will not save 
much, if any, money. Cost savings are illusory. But approving the 
amendment would have very real human cost. The amendment will delay 
clean air efforts, resulting in more hospital admissions, more lost 
days of work, more misery, more suffering for American families. Those 
are real costs.
  The sponsors of this amendment also suggest that this measure is 
needed because otherwise communities would get a damaging black mark. 
The idea here, I guess, is that dirty air does not exist if it is not 
officially recognized. But, unfortunately, our lungs do not react to 
political designations; they react to the chemicals actually present in 
the air. All the official designation does is to enable the new rules 
to move forward if, and only if, they are upheld by the Supreme Court.
  Also, this black mark argument is a bit of a joke. It is not exactly 
a secret which counties may be out of attainment. EPA released a list 
of those

[[Page 11788]]

more than 3 years ago, and the sponsors themselves have been 
circulating lists of out-of-attainment counties for weeks. In other 
words, the black marks have already been given. The only question is 
what we are going to do about those black marks. The amendment would 
remove the black mark temporarily by pretending they were never given. 
Without this amendment, communities can begin to figure out how to 
remove the black marks by actually cleaning up their air.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 
It is not necessary and it is contrary to the best interests of 
American families.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I think the crocodile tears the gentleman from New York has for the 
number of hospital admissions must come from a bad dream, because the 
EPA said to the court there is no way for us to quantify the health 
statistics with their new rule.
  The EPA wants to move forward with designating areas, and the 
gentleman says that is not going to hurt anyone. But let me tell my 
colleagues what happens when designations are made. Highway funds stop 
under the Clean Air Act. Yes, highway funds stop, not because of 
enforcement but because of designation. Fewer loans are extended to 
businesses. A mountain of lawsuits from environmental groups, who are 
now given standing, are filed against States and localities. Many more 
thousands of dollars are spent by States and localities to comply with 
the designation process, not the enforcement process. News articles 
labeling regions as polluted, using standards that are unenforceable, 
will occur, and businesses moving or expanding will go elsewhere.
  Finally, an effective designation triggers a conformity process under 
the Clean Air Act. That clearly means hundreds of billions of dollars 
in highway funds lost. This is real. The EPA ought to abide by the 
court decision.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to support my colleagues 
from Georgia and vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA's new standards could potentially triple the 
number of counties nationwide in violation of the Clean Air Act. 
Chattahoochee County, in my congressional district, could possibly be 
one of those counties impacted by the new national ambient air quality 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, Chattahoochee County is not an industrial county. It is 
a small poor rural county that is trying to build its economic base. 
EPA's new standards, no matter how well intentioned, could seriously 
damage this effort.
  Last year, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that EPA's 
standards are legally unenforceable. The Supreme Court announced that 
they would consider EPA's appeal and all the arguments involved. Due to 
this legal uncertainty, I truly believe that the EPA should delay 
further implementation of the standards in order to allow time for the 
Supreme Court to rule on the pending appeal.
  Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals and 
does rule that the new standards are unconstitutional, our States and 
our local communities will have spent tax dollars to comply with 
illegal requirements and will have nothing to show for their investment 
in a federally mandated process. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong support of the 
Collins-Linder amendment.
  Now, I am sure we are going to hear today the standard EPA mantra 
that the new air quality standards would prevent thousands of asthma 
attacks and hospital admissions. We have already heard it. The problem 
is that was determined with very faulty studies and bad science. These 
were precisely the studies, the faulty studies, that the D.C. District 
Court found were not backed by credible evidence and violated Congress' 
legislative authority, and that led the court to overrule this agency. 
That is the first branch of the Federal Government saying to this 
Federal court that they must stop.
  Furthermore, the Committee on Commerce listened hours on end to a 
debate with EPA on this and found the same thing: this science is not 
credible. We should not go forward with something until we know exactly 
what we are doing because there are negative consequences of this.
  Everybody needs to vote for this amendment and tell the EPA to cut it 
out.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  It is my understanding, and I will address this to the gentleman from 
Georgia, that the courts did rule or they did say that the science was 
reasonable.
  The other gentleman from Georgia, for whom I have great respect, made 
a comment about the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) having 
crocodile tears. Well, I can tell my colleague that I have crocodile 
tears because of some of the ozone days that we have here in the State 
of Maryland.
  One of the counties in my district, Anne Arundel County, and I will 
say it for all to hear, is the 11th worst county in the United States 
for these kinds of ozone particulate problems. When that came out in 
the press, and it was substantiated, the people did not get angry that 
that information was there. The people were happy that they had that 
information so they could talk to the local county executive and figure 
out ways maybe they could help resolve that issue.
  We have, in the State of Maryland, I do not know if it is worse than 
anybody else, but we happen to be in the jet stream, the confluence of 
the westerly winds that blow from the Midwest, and they come right 
across the mid-Atlantic States, and they come right across my district, 
and they carry everything from, well, not much from California, one 
would assume, but the industrial area of the Midwest, and all of that 
dirty air that they happen to put up in the atmosphere with the high 
smokestacks, and I am not saying anything about the industrial area of 
the Midwest, it just so happens we get a lot of the particulates and 
ozone problems from that region as a result of the jet stream.
  Now, because of that, we do not want to not know that information. We 
want to know that information because, number one, we put up a lot of 
pollution ourselves. We have coal-fired power plants; we have the I-95 
corridor that runs right through the State of Maryland and brings all 
that traffic and all those problems. So we want to know what we can do 
with our own situation here in the State of Maryland. Not placing the 
blame anyplace else, but saying we have a problem, we have the 
information, we want to learn about how we can solve it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Scientists have been studying the effects of ozone on human health 
for many years, and we know there are serious adverse health effects 
associated with ozone air pollution. Ozone can trigger asthma attacks, 
reduce lung function, inflame and damage the lining of the lung. 
Prolonged exposure can lead to permanent damage in the way human lungs 
function. So we have a serious health issue associated with ozone.
  In 1997, EPA finalized new standards for ozone and fine particulate 
matters. In May of 1999, in a court case, the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia remanded these standards back to EPA, and there is 
an appeal now going on to the Supreme Court. But an issue that is not 
under contention is

[[Page 11789]]

whether ozone is harmful or whether EPA had the science to promulgate 
these standards. No one disagreed with that, and the court was explicit 
in underscoring EPA's decision that it was based on the science.
  What is at issue before the Supreme Court is an issue under the 
nondelegation doctrine. And the Supreme Court is going to be looking at 
that question. It is really quite an unprecedented matter of law. But 
in the meantime, areas have been designated under this new standard. 
This Linder-Collins amendment would stop the designation.
  Well, the designation ought to go forward. It does not require 
expenditure of money for costly monitoring. It does not require a loss 
of highway funding. It is not EPA disregarding the court case. This is 
important to go forward with the designations so the areas can be 
prepared to move once the Supreme Court has decided the issue.
  If this amendment were agreed to, it would set us years further along 
before the localities would be in line to meet the standards and would 
be prepared to do what is necessary to meet those standards. I would 
hope Members would oppose the Collins-Linder amendment.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
and I start with one question: Have we walked through the looking glass 
with Alice? Have we now entered Wonderland?
  I want my colleagues to follow this with me. The Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 specify in section 181 that EPA is to put in place a 
1-hour standard for ozone and particulate protection, and to measure 
communities out of attainment based upon that standard.
  EPA decided on its own to revise that standard. The court of appeals 
here in Washington said that was unconstitutional.

                              {time}  1815

  It further held that their standards were arbitrary and capricious 
and they use no intelligible standards by which to address the science 
to this new formula they came up with. So they have got an 
unconstitutional formula standard on their hands. They are told they 
cannot enforce it. And yet today they are demanding that States declare 
communities across America out of the attainment on a standard that has 
been declared unconstitutional.
  Have we entered Wonderland? Now we are told this is not going to cost 
anything. EPA says this is going to cost $9.6 billion to implement. 
Have we got $9.6 billion to throw away, designating nonattainment 
communities on a standard that the Supreme Court might indeed declare 
unconstitutional? I ask my colleagues, who of them in their district 
has $9.6 billion to give to this worthless effort?
  Secondly, the Supreme Court is going to rule on this next year. We 
are going to get an answer as to whether this is real or not. In the 
meantime, EPA wants to designate communities across America in 324 
congressional districts, 324, three-quarters of the congressional 
districts of this House, are going to be designated out of attainment. 
For what? For a standard that has been declared unconstitutional.
  Every one of those communities and congressional districts will be 
stigmatized for economic growth and development and will be told they 
are out of attainment, they are not in compliance with Federal law. And 
my colleagues tell me damage will not be done.
  This is Wonderland. We need to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder).
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would rightly supersede and suspend a 
bureaucratic fiat by unelected agency officials that could cost our 
States and communities billions of dollars as they struggle to comply 
with an unattainable, unsubstantiated, and unconstitutional standard.
  We should protect our constituents from the significant costs of 
EPA's decision to mandate a new, highly restrictive ozone standard 
until the Supreme Court decides whether or not they have the legal and 
enforceable right to do so.
  Already, the Court of Appeals has rejected the reasoning underlying 
the EPA's decision to mandate these standards. Taxpayers should not be 
burdened by premature enforcement of an agency's standard that cannot 
be enforceable and should not be issued.
  Exposing taxpayers to the increased costs of regulations erected on a 
highly unstable constitutional footing makes little sense.
  Let me be clear. This amendment is not a referendum on the Clean Air 
Act. It simply protects taxpayers by postponing further action by the 
EPA from prematurely designating these areas until the court has 
decided that the EPA has the right to do that.
  Congress should protect its own prerogatives and the taxpayers by 
supporting this amendment and allowing the Supreme Court to render a 
final determination.
  Support common sense and fairness. Require the Congress to accept our 
full responsibility in this area and allow the Supreme Court to make 
its decision.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, America is only as strong as its communities; and by 
placing a giant question mark over our communities, we do a disservice 
to community growth.
  My district, obviously, is one of the communities that would be 
adversely impacted by the implementation of the EPA standards.
  The United States Court of Appeals has ruled that the EPA label for 
new air standards are legally unenforceable. So why does the EPA insist 
to place a badge of inferiority over our Nation's cities?
  Indianapolis, from which I am elected, is a badge that the U.S. Court 
has viewed as having no merit. I support clean air. However, let it be 
under a standard that has the legal sanction of the U.S. court system.
  If allowed, this badge of inferiority that lacks legal precedent 
could have an adverse impact on new businesses that may be less likely 
to open new facilities in areas designated as contaminated. It may have 
an impact on the hiring of new employees and community growth in that 
people may not desire to move into an area that has been deemed to be 
polluted.
  Let us not place an illegal badge of inferiority on our American 
citizens.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  As one of the 325 Members who could have all or part of our 
congressional districts included in the nonattainment areas under the 
EPA's 8-hour ozone standard, I want my constituents, especially 
seniors, children and those with asthma, to have cleaner air sooner 
rather than later.
  In New Jersey, the months from April to October are not only the 
summer season, but they are also known as the ozone season. During this 
period, the Garden State will see an average of 240,000 asthma attacks; 
2,000 related hospital admissions; and 6,000 related emergency room 
visits. These statistics are from the New Jersey Department of Health.
  The 8-hour standard is 10 percent more stringent than the current 1-
hour standard and incorporates larger geographic areas. This forces up-
wind polluting States, such as those in the Midwest, to do more of 
their fair share to help down-wind receiving States, such as mine, come 
into compliance.

[[Page 11790]]

  EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act should go forward. I urge 
that the amendment be rejected.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is so much misinformation in this 
debate it is mind boggling.
  Let me read from the D.C. Circuit Court decision. ``The factors EPA 
uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with 
different levels of ozone and particulate matters are reasonable.'' 
That is a direct quote.
  Secondly, not one penny is going to be spent in the designation 
process. The only money that will be spent is if the Supreme Court 
upholds these rulings. The fact of the matter is not one penny will be 
spent by any community. No community loses highway funds. No community 
loses any support from the Federal Government for economic development 
activities.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) was absolutely correct. 
It all boils down to this: The American people have a right to know. 
The American people have a right to know.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right, there is a lot of 
misinformation about this; and he just delivered some more.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Linder-
Collins amendment.
  We are all supporters of clean air. This debate is not whether or not 
ozone is harmful. We all know it is. This debate is about fairness. It 
is a debate about whether or not we should all be able to play by the 
same rules.
  Over a year ago, the Federal Circuit court found that the EPA acted 
without authorization in drafting these new 8-hour ozone standards. We 
know that that matter is on appeal. But we also know that the EPA is 
continuing to use these standards to label our communities and to 
designate some of them as nonattainment areas.
  What does a nonattainment label mean? It means a suspense of Federal 
highway funds. It could mean the imposition of auto emissions testing 
programs. And it certainly means restrictions on all of our local 
industries. It is like a bright neon sign at the county line saying 
``stay out'' to every business and industry that is looking for a new 
place to invest.
  We believe that everybody should be able to play by the same rules 
and that we should wait until the Supreme Court rules.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentleman, and I strongly associate myself with the comments from my 
colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). He has it right. 
The ozone problems are proven.
  This amendment would be a significant step backward. It is, in fact, 
legal and required to be done by the EPA. It would be wrong to set back 
this work up to 2 years while some of the legal issues are, in fact, 
being hashed out.
  In Atlanta, failure to comply with the Clean Air Act provided much-
needed catalyst for making a serious examination of the impacts of 
unplanned, rapid growth in its metropolitan area.
  I think what is happening in Atlanta in Georgia is part of the 
success stories. Because the new governor had the courage and the 
foresight to move through a comprehensive approach they have not yet 
lost one dime of Federal highway money, they have been able to channel 
it for things that are in compliance with the plan, and they are able 
to move ahead and move forward.
  It would be a disservice to Atlanta and to other areas of the country 
to not give people the best information, to not move forward as rapidly 
as we can, and not be ready to implement this if, as I believe it is in 
fact going to be the case, this is sustained by the Supreme Court.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment on the previous 
speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.  Turner), as far as putting a 
neon sign on his area that was considered in a nonattainment area for 
business purposes.
  New York and Atlanta are both in nonattainment areas, and their 
economies are prospering. So I think that is a nonargument.
  And, also, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.  Blumenauer) said no 
highway funds would be withheld as a result of this, and that is also 
true.
  I think that people should know the quality of their air.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment.
  The EPA has already acted. The energy and commerce committee acted in 
1990, laid it out fairly specifically.
  I certainly respect the gentleman from New York (Mr.  Boehlert) but I 
differ with him on his interpretation of what the Court of Appeals 
said. He relayed some information that they had deemed something 
reasonable, but they also deemed it unconstitutional and they wrote I 
think very clearly.
  I think where the mistake is here, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) says that to pass this amendment would unduly delay 
implementation. Of course it would. That is the whole idea of the 
amendment, asking them not to be unconstitutional, not to usurp the 
congressional authority here.
  They are presuming that the Supreme Court is going to bail them out. 
I presume the Supreme Court is going to follow the law and tell the EPA 
that they acted unconstitutionally, not to act. I think it is just that 
clear.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout the VA/HUD appropriations hearings this 
year, I have had occasion to engage both EPA Administrator Carol 
Browner and Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bob 
Perciasepe in a dialogue about their legal troubles and their faulty 
standards and their flips and their reversals and their scientific 
troubles.
  In light of all that, let me explain a little personal experience we 
are having with EPA in Michigan.
  The EPA implemented national restrictive mandates on air using a 1-
hour measurement. Then EPA revoked the 1-hour measurement and switched 
to an 8-hour measurement. Next the courts explained to EPA that their 
actions were unconstitutional. Then the EPA flipped back again to the 
first restrictive mandate.
  As my colleagues can imagine, the States and the regulated community 
are frustrated and harmed by EPA's failures.
  Now the EPA is ignoring the most recent air quality data and is 
instead relying on old, out-of-date designations that were in place at 
the time the 1-hour measurement was revoked the first time.
  Now, if my colleagues are lost, so were we and so are we.
  Now, this bad action by EPA violates the long-standing legal 
principle of fairness known as ``detrimental reliance.''
  We can do a whole lot better than this. For just such examples as 
these, I support the amendment and congratulate the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for 
their leadership.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about gathering information. And 
information is important. It is important for our cities and our 
communities to know just exactly what kind of quality of air they have 
there for their citizenry. But this does not stop information 
gathering.

[[Page 11791]]

  What we are concerned about is the designation, the mark, the stigma, 
the scarlet letter that so many people will look at prior to 
entertaining that community as a place to locate a business or even to 
locate themselves.

                              {time}  1830

  The amendment is just good common sense: wait until such time as the 
Supreme Court rules on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I know a lot of times 
common sense does not prevail that much here. But I hope it does today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LINDER. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just deal with three points. None of us want our 
constituents to suffer illness because of air. But let us talk about 
what actually was said in the court. The D.C. Circuit specifically 
noted that EPA's arguments on the health effects of changing from the 
1-hour rule to the 8-hour rule for the 1997 standard were bizarre. That 
is the court's response. Bizarre. The EPA itself argued during the 
trial that the health effects were irrelevant to the development of the 
rule, and EPA's own final rule on the 8-hour standard notes that 
quantitative risk assessment could not be developed. This is the EPA 
speaking.
  With respect to the transportation issue and the highway funds, in 
the Clean Air Act a nonattainment designation, which the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins) referred to, triggers the conformity process. 
Under this process, a region can lose all access to its Federal highway 
funds even if it is in conformity. No EPA enforcement actions are 
necessary to trigger conformity. Only a nonattainment designation is 
needed to threaten a region's highway funding. The Federal DOT directs 
all enforcement during this process.
  Finally, let me say that this is not unprecedented. The gentleman 
from New York voted for this 2 years ago. In TEA-21, we had a provision 
that stayed the rules, that stayed the designation process for 1 year; 
and we had that because we thought the court would be completed within 
1 year. All Members who voted for TEA-21 voted for this moratorium, 297 
Members strong. Unfortunately, the delay was not long enough. We will 
just be extending it until the court finally decides.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to congratulate both sides in this debate. I 
thought the debate was conducted at a high level. Solid points were 
made on both sides. My view is that we should, when we have a decision 
to make, make it based on facts; and I think we should err on the side 
of caution. Caution in the sense of human health would dictate that we 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been a leader and one of the reasons 
that New York's air and water are cleaner than ever.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the Collins-Linder amendment is nothing 
less than an effort to unnecessarily undermine clean air efforts by 
dragging them out forever. All the designation does is give the public 
information, information that they need to protect their families. 
Nothing can go forward until the Supreme Court acts.
  Are the sponsors afraid that a simple listing of a nonattainment area 
will do damage? Are they worried that communities might start planning 
to clean up their air? Are they afraid the citizens might start 
agitating for cleaner air? Do they think that pretending that an area 
has clean air by delaying its listing will enable its citizens to 
breathe easier? We want to equip the American public with the 
information they need to make intelligent decisions. If all we do is 
continue to study these problems, we will end up with the best 
documented environmental disaster in history.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
which could delay health protections for millions of Americans.
  National ozone standards are a key tool in the fight against 
respiratory disease.
  Last year the DC Circuit court ruled that the new 8-hour ozone 
standards can not be implemented in their current form.
  However, it did not question their scientific basis, and it 
recognized that current law requires EPA to designate non-attainment 
areas for the new standards.
  Because the case is under appeal to the Supreme Court, the EPA cannot 
impose sanctions or restrictions or non-attainment areas.
  EPA cannot enforce the new standards until the Court has ruled on the 
appeal, so this amendment will not save any counties or states from 
paying federal penalties.
  This amendment will only prevent us from knowing just how polluted 
our air really is . . .
  . . . And needlessly delay ozone reductions that will improve air 
quality for every American.
  Opponents of tighter standards say that designating non-attainment 
areas will be too costly.
  They say that gathering air quality information is not worth our time 
or money.
  But with rising asthma rates and soaring health care costs, delaying 
tough ozone standards will be far more expensive.
  Today 30 million Americans live with lung disease, and their 
conditions worsen with each breath of unhealthy air.
  It costs more than $10 billion a year to treat the 17 million 
Americans who suffer from asthma.
  Asthma rates are growing most quickly among young children, so there 
is every reason to believe that costs will continue to climb.
  But health care costs alone don't tell the whole story.
  Unhealthy air hurts everyone's quality of life.
  Last fall, when I introduced a bill to cut toxic emissions from power 
plants, I was joined at a press conference by Joan Benoit Samuelson, an 
Olympic marathon gold medalist, and Maribeth Bush, a young woman from 
Portland, Maine who suffers from chronic lung disease.
  Ironically, each woman said that she doesn't need to watch the 
weather report to learn the air quality in Maine that day.
  One woman has met challenge as a world class athlete, while the other 
finds every breath she takes a challenge.
  Yet both need only step outside each morning to determine if the air 
is unhealthy to breathe.
  On a bad ozone day, everyone suffers, and this amendment will only 
delay improvements in air quality that will help us all breathe more 
freely.
  The amendment is unnecessary, it is harmful, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Linder/
Collins amendment.
  Despite a ruling last year from the U.S. Court of Appeals, the 
Environmental Protection Agency continues to press states to enforce 
its new air regulation standards. The Appeals Court had declared the 
new standards unconstitutional delegations of legislative powers. The 
EPA has now appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court will hear the 
case.
  In the meantime, however, EPA has notified governors that they have 
until June 30 to designate areas that will not meet the new air 
standards or the EPA will do it for them. EPA should not be pushing 
states to enforce regulation that have been struck down in court and 
whose future will be decided by the Supreme Court.
  Five counties in my district have been put on notice that they will 
not be in attainment of these new rules. How can these counties become 
non-attainment areas of a regulation that has been declared invalid by 
the Appeals Court? The EPA does not know what the outcome of the 
Supreme Court decision will be, yet it is acting as though the air 
standards are law, instead of respecting the decision of the Appeals 
Court.
  Edmonson County in my district is a rural area with little industy. 
Much of the country is home to Mammoth Cave National Park. Yet Edmonson 
County faces the possibility of becoming an ozone non-attainment area. 
The area easily meets the current ozone standards. Requiring the state 
and local government to plan for a possible regulation is a waste of 
resources. At the same time, the area's efforts to attract industry to 
provide more and better paying jobs to its residents will be hampered 
by EPA's decision to move forward with null and void standards.
  Western parts of my district around Owensboro are facing a similar 
situation. Local officials are left in limbo, being told they will have 
to take steps to change ozone levels in their counties but also knowing 
that without the Supreme Court's approval, the regulations they are 
planning for will not take affect. This is not prudent policy making.

[[Page 11792]]

  Officials in Kentucky stated in media reports that the technology is 
not available to determine the source of ozone, only its current 
location. The counties in my district that could become non-compliant 
will likely become so because of moving ozone. If the science is not 
available to know where the higher ozone comes from, how are these 
areas expected to eliminate it?
  All of us support clean air. But air standards must have a scientific 
background, be set according to the law and be evaluated on their costs 
and benefits. Regulations for regulation's sake, such as these, produce 
no benefits. EPA's job is to enforce the law, not create it. EPA should 
enforce the provisions of the Clean Air Act, but it should do so in 
accordance with the law and scientific standards. EPA has not presented 
sufficient reasons for regulations beyond the 1990 standards.
  Until the Supreme Court has issued its judgement on the validity of 
the EPA's 1997 air quality regulation, we need to support this 
amendment and keep state and local communities from bearing the costs 
of this invalid regulation. Until a regulation that can legally be 
enforced is in effect, this designation process must be postponed. This 
is a simple, common sense request.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend both Mr. 
Collins and Mr. Linder for offering this extremely important amendment 
to stop EPA from implementing the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) until resolution of the matter by the Supreme Court.
  The suburbs of Atlanta have, since 1997, been grappling with the 
problems created by Atlanta's non-attainment of Clean Air Act 
standards. The EPA has attempted to include these outlying areas in 
their enforcement of these non-attainment standards, wreaking havoc on 
the citizens, governments, and industries located in these areas. Last 
year, a federal appeals court has ruled EPA acted unconstitutionally in 
proposing the new NAAQS in 1997, because Congress had not empowered EPA 
to act unilaterally on the matter. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear 
the case, but it may not issue a decision until early 2001.
  The resulting situation is one of increasing uncertainty. First, 
communities already out of attainment are left shooting at a moving 
target, because they have no idea whether the changes they are making 
today will conform with the standards of tomorrow. Secondly, EPA may 
end up including additional regions of the state in the non-attainment 
area, in an effort to force them to change zoning and development 
practices before the Court issues a ruling. Obviously, either situation 
is extremely unfair, especially since EPA lost the first round of 
litigation in court.
  The Linder-Collins amendment simply states that EPA cannot enforce 
the new standards until the Court determines whether the federal agency 
acted constitutionally. By passing this amendment, we can ensure that 
reasonable, common sense development practices are not supplanted by a 
last-ditch effort by EPA to enforce its unconstitutional mandates in 
the face of judicial and congressional opposition. The bottom line is 
that EPA's games will cost taxpayers dollars, make local planning 
impossible, create gridlock and increases pollution from idling cars. 
Let's put a stop to this, and see what the Supreme Court has to say on 
the issue.
  I urge you to support passage of this amendment, to bring fairness 
and accountability to the process whereby EPA sets mandated clear air 
standards. Citizens cannot be allowed to flout the law and judicial 
process, and neither should a federal regulatory agency.
  Vote yes for the Linder-Collins amendment to VA-HUD Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Pascrell

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pascrell:
       At the end of the bill (page 90, after line 16) insert the 
     following new section:
       ``Sec.   . The second dollar amount otherwise provided in 
     title I under the heading ``Departmental Administration--
     general operating expenses'', is hereby reduced by $100,000 
     and increased by $100,000.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. With this amendment I seek to correct the great neglect, Mr. 
Chairman, with which the Veterans Administration treats many of our 
Nation's veterans. The neglect to which I refer is the VA's lack of 
effort in reaching out to our veterans and informing them what benefits 
they are entitled to. Too often our Nation's heroes are not adequately 
informed as to what benefits they are entitled to receive or how to 
obtain those benefits, and their families are not as well. In fact, a 
survey conducted by the VA indicated that less than half the veterans 
contacted were aware of certain benefits they were entitled to receive, 
including pension benefits for disabled and low-income veterans.
  My amendment is simple. It mandates that whatever amount has been 
previously earmarked for outreach to veterans must be increased by 
$100,000 from the general operating fund. This extra funding is 
desperately needed. It is time for the VA to take seriously its 
responsibility for informing the veterans community about available 
benefits.
  To further achieve this goal, I have introduced legislation, the 
Veterans Right to Know Act. My bill mandates that the Veterans 
Administration inform widows and survivors of vets about what benefits 
and services are available to them. It further requires that the VA 
develop an annual outreach plan designed to help identify veterans who 
are not registered and devise ways to inform vets of changes to their 
benefits.
  Most importantly, my bill requires that the VA consult with veterans' 
organizations in developing the plan. That way we know it will work. I 
am a veteran. I am fully aware of the challenges that we face, the 
hardships that many of us have endured, and the pride we take in having 
served our country. Members of the Armed Forces have put themselves at 
great risk to protect America. In return, the Federal Government has 
made a commitment to both active duty and retired military personnel to 
provide certain benefits. Veterans throughout this country deserve 
these benefits. They have earned these benefits through their 
patriotism and their courage and their values. It is an absolute 
outrage that the Government they fought for is not doing a good enough 
job informing them of what they are entitled to receive. It is our 
responsibility to inform our veterans as to what benefits they are 
entitled to receive. Abraham Lincoln spoke of this responsibility in 
his second inaugural address, saying we must ``care for him who shall 
have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.''
  Throughout our Nation's history, millions of men and women have 
served in our Armed Forces, during times of peace and in times of war. 
They have defended the very freedoms our country was founded upon. My 
legislation honors that commitment. I am going to fight to make it the 
law of the land.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last world. I thank the 
gentleman for his hard work in this area. We share his concerns 
regarding veterans and their ability to know all their benefits and 
that their dependents are entitled to that. This legislation is before 
the authorizing committee. We would urge them to consider it in a 
timely manner. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 11793]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to administer the Communities for Safer Guns 
     Coalition.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Today, I offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development from spending any Federal funds on the 
Communities for Safer Guns Coalition. This unauthorized program 
implemented by HUD could have adverse consequences on State and local 
law enforcement. According to HUD's press releases, coalition members 
sign a pledge and agree to show buying preferences to gun manufacturers 
who agree to impose gun control on themselves, their dealers and their 
customers. In other words, HUD and the communities signing these 
pledges are willing to sacrifice the requirements of law enforcement in 
order to coerce manufacturers into gun control agreements that they in 
turn impose upon their dealers and their customers. But you need not 
take my word for it. Two major law enforcement groups oppose these 
preferences.
  Let me share with Members a few of their comments. The Law 
Enforcement Alliance of America, or LEAA, states this in their 
opposition to these preferences and I quote:
  ``LEAA disapproves of any attempt by the Clinton administration to 
strip law enforcement agencies of their right to choose the firearms 
for their officers. Each individual law enforcement agency is wholly 
qualified to decide the firearm manufacturers and models that they deem 
best suited for the needs of their officers. In fact, the individual 
law enforcement agencies are the most qualified to understand their 
particular needs. They do not need the Federal Government's partisan 
politics manipulating this or any other officer safety decisions made 
at the local level.''
  The Fraternal Order of Police states:
  ``The top concern of any law enforcement agency purchasing firearms 
is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy. 
Law enforcement agencies have to stretch every dollar and they need to 
get the best weapons for their officers that their budget allows. 
Reducing their choices by imposing a requirement that they buy only 
from gunmakers who agree to certain HUD stipulations does not help the 
law enforcement mission.''
  We cannot allow those who lay their lives on the line each and every 
day to go into the field with equipment ill-suited for their mission. 
We owe it to them to ensure that they have the best equipment they can 
afford without regard to HUD's end run around this legislature to 
legislate by litigation and coercion.
  I urge all Members to support my amendment and show their support for 
law enforcement. Do not allow HUD to overrule officer safety for the 
purpose of a political agenda. Support the ability of law enforcement 
to choose the best equipment for themselves. Vote yes on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Hostettler amendment will 
prevent the Department of Housing and Urban Development from working 
with the Community for Safer Guns Coalition. The coalition consists of 
more than 411 State and local governments around the Nation that have 
signed on to reduce gun violence in their communities. Those 
governments came together following Smith & Wesson's agreement with HUD 
in which the manufacturer agreed to make safer guns and to prevent guns 
from being sold to criminals. Some communities in the coalition include 
Syracuse, New York; Bloomington, Indiana; Davenport, Iowa; Los Angeles; 
Oakland; Wilmington; Peoria; Bowling Green; Anderson, South Carolina; 
Brink, New Jersey, and many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the complete list for the Record:

                  Communities for Safer Guns Coalition


                                alabama

       Mitchell, Quitman, Mayor, Bessemer.
       Price, Julian, Mayor, Decatur.
       Snow, Willie, Mayor, Hobson City.
       Phillips, Leon, Mayor, Lake View.
       Daniel, Edward, Mayor, Marion.
       Dow, Michael, Mayor, Mobile.
       May, James, Mayor, Uniontown.


                                arkansas

       Hays, Patrick, Mayor, North Little Rock.


                                arizona

       Grijalva, Raul, Board of Supervisors Chair, Prima County.
       Wilcox, Mary Rose, Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County.


                               california

       Chan, Wilma, President of the Board of Supervisors, Alameda 
     County.
       Rocha, Mary, Mayor, Antioch.
       Shoup, Mark, Mayor, Apple Valley.
       Cruz-Madrid, Christina, Mayor, Azuza.
       Dean, Shirley, Mayor, Berkeley.
       Clegg, Legrand, City Attorney, Compton.
       Wilson, Sharifa, Mayor, East Palo Alto.
       Morrisson, Gus, Mayor, Fremont.
       Cooper, Roberta, Mayor, Hayward.
       Van Arsdale, Lori, Mayor, Hemet.
       Dorn, Roosevelt, Mayor, Inglewood.
       Hahn, James, City Attorney, Los Angeles.
       Brown, Jerry, Mayor, Oakland.
       Bogaard, Bill, Mayor, Pasadena.
       Gardner, Garth, Mayor, Pico Rivera.
       Corbin, Rosemary, Mayor, Richmond.
       Yee, Jimmie, Mayor, Sacramento.
       Renne, Louise, City Attorney, San Francisco.
       Miller, Harriet, Mayor, Santa Barbara.
       Valles, Judith, Mayor, San Bernadino.
       Carlson, Brenda, County Supervisor, San Mateo County.
       Trindle, Greg, LT, San Mateo County Police Chief.
       Andre, Curt, Mayor, Turlock.
       Nolan, Robert, Mayor, Upland.
       Intintoli, A.J., Mayor, Vallejo.


                                colorado

       Richards, Rachel, Mayor, Aspen.
       Markalunas, James, Councilman, Aspen Council.
       Toor, Will, Mayor, Boulder.
       Parsons, Donald, Mayor, Northglenn.


                              connecticut

       Ganim, Joseph, Mayor, Bridgeport.
       Eriquez, Gene, Mayor, Danbury.
       Larson, Timothy, Mayor, East Hartford.
       Amento, Carl, Mayor, Hamden.
       Peters, Michael, Mayor, Hartford.
       Marinan, Joseph, Mayor, Meriden.
       Destefano, John, Mayor, New Haven.
       Malloy, Dannel, Mayor, Stamford.
       Blumenthal, Richard, Mr., State of Connecticut.
       Borer, Jr., Richard, Mayor, West Haven.


                                delaware

       Sills, James, Mayor, Wilmington.


                          district of columbia

       Williams, Anthony, Mayor, Washington, DC.


                                florida

       Aungst, Brian, Mayor, Clearwater.
       Hanson, Carol, Mayor, Boca Raton.
       Jackson, Robert, Mayor, Largo.
       Brown, Samuel, Mayor, Lauderdale Lakes.
       Schwartz, Arlene, Mayor, Margate.
       Wolland, Frank, Mayor, North Miami.
       Foster, E., Mayor, Ocala.
       Miller, Alvin, Mayor, Opa-Lacka.
       Hickson, Linda, Deputy Clerk, Palm Beach County.
       Armstrong, Rae, Mayor, Plantation.
       Reeder, Dottie, Mayor, Seminole.
       Anthony, Clarence, Mayor, South Bay.
       Fischer, David, Mayor, St. Petersburg.
       Feren, Steven, Mayor, Sunrise.
       Schreiber, Joe, Mayor, Taramac.
       Daves, Joel, Mayor, West Palm Beach.
       Penelas, Alexander, Mayor, Miami-Dade County.


                                georgia

       Campbell, William, Mayor, Atlanta.
       Albritten, Robert, Mayor, Dawson.
       Hillard, Patsy, Mayor, East Point.
       Hightower, Michael, County Commissioner, Fulton County.
       Gresham, Emma, Mayor Keysville.
       Ellis, Jack, Mayor, Macon.
       Adams, Floyd, Mayor, Savannah.
       Burris, Chuck, Mayor, Stone Mountain.
       Davis, Willie, Mayor, Vienna.
       Johnson, BA, Mayor, Wadley.
       Carter, James, Mayor, Woodland.


                                 hawaii

       Cayetano, Benjamin, Governor, Hawaii.
       Harris, Jeremy, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu.


                                  iowa

       Crews, Jon, Mayor, Cedar Falls.

[[Page 11794]]

       Clancy, Lee, Mayor, Cedar Rapids.
       Yerington, Phil, Mayor, Davenport.
       Rooff, John, Mayor, Waterloo.
       Koehrsen, Bernal, Chief, Waterloo Police Department.


                                illinois

       Williams, Carolyn, Mayor, Alorton.
       Mulder, Arlene, Mayor, Arlington Heights, Village of.
       Powell, Debra, Mayor, East St. Louis.
       Bennett, Sillierine, Mayor, Ford Heights.
       Jackson, Linda, Mayor, Glendale Heights.
       Kolb, Ernest, Mayor, Oak Lawn.
       Grieves, Lowell, Mayor, Peoria.
       Box, Charles, Mayor, Rockford.
       Schwiebert, Mark, Mayor, Rock Island.
       Wade, Jr., Casey, Mayor, Sun River Terrace.


                                indiana

       Selman, Edwin, Mayor, Angola.
       Ullrich, Richard, Mayor, Aurora.
       Abplanalp, Bill, Mayor, Batesville.
       Fernandex, John, Mayor, Bloomington.
       Glassley, Ron, Mayor, Columbia City.
       Johnson, Thomas, Mayor, Dunkirk.
       Pastrick, Robert, Mayor, East Chicago.
       King, Scott, Mayor, Gary.
       Dedelow, Duane, Mayor, Hammond.
       Buzinec, Linda, Mayor, Hobart.
       McGahen, Larry, Mayor, Kendallville.
       Dembowski, Nancy, Mayor, Knox.
       Heath, Dave, Mayor, Lafayette.
       Sheriff, Lafayette.
       Huntington, Albert, Mayor, Madison.
       Brillson, Sheila, Mayor, Michigan City.
       Beutter, Robert, Mayor, Mishawaka.
       Canan, Dan, Mayor, Muncie.
       Overton, Regina, Mayor, New Albany.
       Redick, Dennis, Mayor, Noblesville.
       Blair, Richard, Mayor, Peru.
       Yeazel, James, Mayor, Plymouth.
       Arihood, Herb, Mayor, Rensselaer.
       Campbell, Douglas, Mayor, Salem.
       Margerum, Sonya, Mayor, West Lafayette.
       Bercik, Robert, Mayor, Whiting.


                                 KANSAS

       Wagnon, Joan, Mayor, Topeka.
       Marinovich, Carol, Mayor, Wyandotte County/Kansas.


                                KENTUCKY

       Renaud, Eldon, Mayor, Bowling Green.


                               LOUISIANA

       Roberson, Joyce, Mayor, Campti.
       Washington, Bobby, Mayor, Cullen.
       Davis, Willie, Mayor, Farmerville
       Coco, Jean, Mayor, Grand Coteau.
       Geyen, Rodney, Mayor, Lake Charles.
       Pierce, Abe, Mayor, Monroe.
       Jupiter, Darnell, Mayor, Napoleonville.
       Morial, Marc, Mayor, New Orleans.
       Berry, Isam, Mayor, Rayville.


                             MASSACHUSETTS

       Galluccio, Anthony, Mayor, Cambridge.
       Menino, Thomas, Mayor, Boston.
       Yunits, John, Mayor, Brockton.
       Ragucci, David, Mayor, Everett.
       Tobey, Bruce, Mayor, Gloucester.
       Rurak, James, Mayor, Haverhill.
       Sullivan, Michael, Mayor, Holyoke.
       Dowling, Patricia, Mayor, Lawrence.
       McManus, Patrick, Mayor, Lynn.
       Howard, Richard, Mayor, Malden.
       McGlynn, Michael, Mayor, Medford.
       Kalisz, Frederick, Mayor, New Bedford.
       Mead, Lisa, Mayor, Newburyport.
       Barrett, John, Mayor, North Adams.
       Higgins, Mary, Mayor, North Hampton.
       Torigan, Peter, Mayor, Peabody.
       Doyle, Jr., Gerald, Mayor, Pittsfield.
       Sheets, James, Mayor, Quincy.
       Ambrosino, Thomas, Mayor, Revere.
       Usovicz, Stanley, Mayor, Salem.
       Kelly Gay, Dorothy, Mayor, Somerville.
       Albano, Michael, Mayor, Springfield.


                                maryland

       Carter, Cynthia, Councilwoman, Annapolis.
       O'Malley, Martin, Mayor, Baltimore.
       Dodson, Vivian, Mayor, Capitol Heights.
       Simms, Jack, Mayor, District Heights.
       Williams, Donjuan, Mayor, Glen Arden.
       Beverly, Lillian, Mayor, North Brentwood.
       Krasnow, Rose, Mayor, Rockville.
       Kennedy, Eugene, Mayor, Seat Pleaseant.
       Curran, Joseph, State Attorney, State of Maryland.


                                 maine

       Kane, Thomas, Mayor, Portland.


                                michigan

       Guido, Michael, Mayor, Dearborn.
       Canfield, Ruth, Mayor, Dearborn Heights.
       Archer, Dennis, Mayor, Detroit.
       Stanley, Woodrow, Mayor, Flint.
       Hampton, Hilliard, Mayor, Inkster.
       Kirksey, Jack, Mayor, Livonia.
       Moore, Walter, Mayor, Pontiac.
       Loster, Gary, Mayor, Saginaw.
       Dumas, Curtis, Mayor, St. Clair Shores.
       Notte, Richard, Mayor, Sterling Heights.
       Pitoniak, Gregory, Mayor, Taylor.
       Thomas, Robert, Mayor, Westland.


                               minnesota

       Kautz, Elizabeth, Mayor, Burnsville.
       Belton, Sharon, Mayor, Minneapolis.
       Anderson, Karen, Mayor, Minnetonka.
       Canfield, Chuck, Mayor, Rochester.


                                missouri

       Duncan, Phil, Mayor, Belton.
       Deinbo, Babatunde, Mayor, Berkeley.
       Eagan, James, Mayor, Florissant.
       Green, Alexander, Mayor, Hayti Heights.
       Stewart, Rondell, Mayor, Independence.
       Shields, Katheryn, County Executive, Jackson County.
       Brooks, Alvin, Mayor Pro Tem, Kansas City.
       Bush, Errol, Mayor, Northwoods.
       Whitfield, Kennard, Mayor, Rock Hill.
       Harmon, Clarence, Honorable, St. Louis.
       Hensley, Robert, Mayor, Velda City.


                              mississippi

       Scott, Alice, Mayor, Canton.
       King, Rober, Mayor, Fayette.
       Smith, Eddie, Mayor, Holly Springs.
       Johnson, Harvey, Honorable, Jackson.
       Phillips, Joe, Mayor, Jonestown.
       Norman, Nerissa, Mayor, Mound Bayou.
       Arnold, Amelda, Mayor, Port Gibson.
       Otis, Larry, Mayor, Tupelo.
       Walker, Robert, Mayor, Vicksburg.
       Leach, Wardell, Mayor, Yazoo.


                                nebraska

       Ryan, Jerry, Mayor, Bellevue.


                             north carolina

       Wilson, Frank, Mayor, Bolton.
       Liles, George, Mayor, Concord.
       Tennyson, Nicholas, Mayor, Durham.
       Holliday, Keith, Mayor, Greensboro.


                               new jersey

       Tomasko, Paul, Mayor, Alpine.
       Russell, Wilbert, City Manager, Asbury Park.
       Whelan, James, Mayor, Atlantic City.
       Lunn, Scott, Mayor, Barrington.
       Doria, Joseph, Mayor, Bayonne.
       Escott, William, Mayor, Bellville.
       Lynch, Richard, Chief of Police, Belmar.
       Lowden, Robert, Mayor, Beverly.
       Bukowski, John, Mayor, Town of Bloomfield.
       Thatcher, David, Mayor, Borough of Laurel Springs.
       Sacco, Nicholas, Mayor, North Bergen.
       Scarpelli, Joseph, Mayor, Township of Brick.
       Pirroli, Michael, Mayor, Bridgetown.
       Sandve, Edward, Borough Administrator, Caldwell.
       Milan, Milton, Honorable, Camden.
       Kurzenknabe, George, Chief of Police, Chatham.
       Poindexter, Arland, Mayor, Chesilhurst.
       Ellenport, Robert, Mayor, Clark.
       Morin, III, Philip, Mayor, Cranford.
       Fisher, Douglas, Chair, Cumberland County.
       Musso, Carol, Mayor, Deerfield.
       Vittorino, Victor, Mayor, Delanco.
       Colasurdo, Lawrence, Mayor, East Hanover.
       Bowser, Robert, Mayor, East Orange.
       Bollwage, J., Mayor, Elizabeth.
       Jung, Louis, Mayor, Fanwood.
       Chizukula, Upendra, Mayor, Franklin Township.
       Seaman, Annette, Mayor, Fredon Township.
       De Rienzo, John, Mayor, Haworth.
       Russo, Anthony, Mayor, Hoboken.
       Bost, Sara, Mayor, Irvington.
       Delucca, Jr., Frank, Mayor, Lindenwold.
       Schneider, Adam, Mayor, Long Branch.
       Corradino, Angelo, Mayor, Manville.
       Dobies, Ronald, Mayor, Middlesex.
       Thompson, Lewis, City Clerk, Administrator, Millville.
       James, Sharpe, Mayor, Newark.
       Cahill, James, Mayor, New Brunswick.
       Morgan, Allen, Mayor, New Providence.
       George, Randy, Mayor, North Haledon.
       Weldon, Terrance, Mayor, Ocean.
       Letts, Mimi, Mayor, Parsippany.
       Barnes, Martin, Mayor, Paterson.
       Wyant, Jr., Harry, Mayor, Phillipsburg.
       McWilliams, Albert, Mayor, Plainfield.
       Kennedy, James, Mayor, Rahway.
       Nolan, Brian, Mayor, Rocky Hill.
       DeBell, Louis, Mayor, Roseland.
       Gage, Earl, Mayor, Salem City.
       Harelik, Clara, Mayor, Springfield.
       Adams, Frank, Mayor, Spring Lake Heights.
       Palmer, Douglas, Mayor, Trenton.
       Garcia, Raul, Mayor, Union City.
       Force, Maria, Mayor, Verona.
       Riga, Raymond, Chief of Police, Wayne Township Police 
     Department.
       Wright, David, Mayor, Winfield.
       McGrevey, James, Mayor, Woodbridge.
       Higgins, Josephine, Mayor, Woodcliff Lake.


                               new mexico

       Baca, Jim, Mayor, Albuquerque.
       Smith, Ruben, Mayor, Las Cruces.
       Hunting, Louis, Mayor, Los Lunas.
       Delgado, Larry, Mayor, Sante Fe.


                                 nevada

       Mack, Michael, Mayor, Las Vegas.
       Griffin, Jeff, Mayor, Reno.


                                new york

       Charles, Michael, Mayor, Akron, Erie County.
       Jennings, Gerald, Mayor, Albany.
       Breslin, Mike, County Executive, Albany.
       Duchessi, John, Mayor, Amsterdam.
       DeAngelis, Christopher, Mayor, Auburn, Cayuga County.
       Schaffer, Richard, Mr., Babylon Township.
       Engelbracht, J.C., Town Attorney, Baldwinsville, Onondago 
     County.
       O'Hara, Dan, Mayor, Baldwinsville, Onondaga County.
       Hollwedel, John, Town Supervisor, Town of Bethany.
       Fiala, Anthony, Majority Leader, Binghamton.

[[Page 11795]]

       Fiala, Barbara, County Clerk, Binghamton.
       Harder, David, Sheriff, Binghamton, Broome County.
       Pasquale, Vincent, Minority Leader, Binghamton, Broome 
     County.
       Whalen, Mark, Binghamton, Broome County
       Frankel, Sandra, Ms., Brighton Township.
       Engel, Eliot, Congressman, Bronx.
       Espada, Pedro, NYC Council, Bronx.
       Ortiz, Felix, State Assembly, Bronx.
       Rivera, Jose, NYC Council, Bronx.
       Brennan, James, State Assembly, Brooklyn, Kings County.
       Cymbrowitz, Lena, Assembly Member, Brooklyn, Kings County.
       Jacobs, Rhoda, State Assembly, Brooklyn, Kings County.
       Perry, Nick, State Assembly, Brooklyn, Kings County.
       Masiello, Anthony, Mayor, Buffalo.
       Hoyt, Sam, State Assembly, Buffalo.
       Eichenberger, Robert, Supervisor, Town of Byron.
       Bilow, Donald, Supervisor, Chateaugay.
       Battiato, Joseph, Mayor, Chester.
       Kobre, Jerome, Mayor, Village of Chestnut Ridge.
       Deno, George, Town Supervisor, Chozy.
       Leak, Frank, Mayor, Village of Colonie.
       Phillips, Harold, Supervisor, Town of Constable.
       O'Shea, Donal, Supervisor, Town of Coventry.
       Elliott, Robert, Mayor, Croton-on-Hudson.
       Drew, K. John, Mayor, Darien.
       Schneiderman, Jay, Supervisor, East Hampton, Suffolk 
     County.
       Hughes, Stephen, Mayor, Elmira.
       Clark, Frank, District Attorney, Erie County.
       Catalino, Robert, Supervisor, Town of Evans.
       Glacken, William, Mayor, Village of Freeport Incorporated.
       Kennison, Weston, Town Supervisor, Geneseo, Livingston 
     County.
       Feiner, Paul, Supervisor, Greenburgh, Westchester County.
       McNulty, Jack, Mayor, Green Island, Albany County.
       Suozzi, Thomas, Mayor, Glen Cove.
       Garner, James, Mayor, Hempstead.
       Donley, Frances, Supervisor, Town of Russia, Herkimer 
     County.
       Passarell, Lewis, Mayor, Holley, Orleans County.
       Hogan, Shawn, Mayor, Hornell.
       Cohen, Alan, Mayor, Ithaca.
       Blumenthal, Susan, Alderperson, Ithaca.
       Wade, George, Mayor, LaGrange.
       Taylor, Ronald, Town Supervisor, Leray.
       Mullen, Kevin, Mayor, Village of Liberty.
       Crystal, Joel, City Council Vice President, Long Beach.
       Salone, John, Mayor, Village of Lyons.
       DiVeronica, Rocco, Mr., Madison County.
       Gottfried, Richard, State Assembly. Manhattan.
       Miller, A. Gifford, Council Mbr, Manhattan.
       DeStefano, Joseph, Mayor, Middletown.
       George, Thomas, Supervisor, Town of Monlius.
       Christiano, Joseph, Mayor, Mount Morris.
       Davis, Ernest, Mayor, Mount Vernon.
       Altmann, Lisanne, Legislator, Nassau County.
       Idoni, Timothy, Mayor, New Rochelle.
       Spitzer, Israel, Deputy Mayor, New Square.
       Carrion, Adolfo, Council Mbr, New York.
       Michels, Stanley, City Council, New York City.
       Stringer, Scott, Assembly Mbr, New York.
       Vallone, Peter, City Council, New York.
       Spitzer, Eliot, Mr., State of New York
       Keller, John, Chief, Niagara Police Department.
       Newburger, May, Supervisor, North Hempstead Township.
       Kabasakalian, Mary, Mayor, North Tonawanda.
       Leifeld, Berndt, Supervisor, Town of Olive.
       Muller, Kim, Mayor, Oneonta, Otsego County.
       Kleiner, Thom, Mr., Orangetown.
       Cudney, Toni, Town Supervisor, Orchard Park, Erie County.
       Cambariere, Thomas, Mayor, Ossining.
       Eiser, Bonnie, Council Mbr, Town of Osyter Bay.
       Venditto, John, Supervisor, Town of Osyter Bay.
       Mayle, Judith, Town Supervisor, Plattekill.
       Stewart, Daniel, Mayor, Plattsburgh.
       Marshall, Herbert, Mayor, Village of Pomona.
       Clark, Barbara, Assemblywoman, Queens, Queens County.
       Cohen, Michael, State Assembly, Queens, Queens County.
       Pheffer, Audrey, State Assembly, Queens, Queens County.
       Scarborough, William, Assembly Member, Queens.
       Reisman, Herbert, Town Supervisor, Ramapo/Rockland County.
       Murray, Eugene, Mayor, Rockville Center.
       Klotz, Kenneth, Mayor, Saratoga Springs.
       Jurczynski, Albert, Mayor, Schenectady.
       Cannuscio, Vincent, Supervisor, Southampton, Suffolk 
     County.
       Cochran, Jean, Supervisor, Town of Southold.
       Armstrong, Thomas, Town Supervisor, Town of Springfield, 
     Erie County.
       Thompson, Alan, Mayor, Spring Valley, Rockland County.
       Gentile, Vincent, Senator, Staten Island.
       Bernardi, Roy, Mayor, Syracuse.
       O'Connell, Katharine, Council at Large, Syracuse.
       Pattison, Mark, Mayor, Troy.
       Ludwick, Richard, Mayor, Village of Unionville.
       Hanna, Edward, Mayor, Utica.
       Spano, Andrew, County Executive, Westchester County.
       Klein, John, Mayor, Wurtsboro.
       Fuller, Richard, Supervisor, Town of Yorkshire.


                                  ohio

       Plusquellic, Donald, Mayor, Akron.
       Watkins, Richard, Mayor, Canton.
       Onunwor, Emmanual, Mayor, East Cleveland.
       Campbell, Jane, County Commissioner, Cuyahoga County.
       Grace, W., Mayor, Elyria.
       Oyaski, Paul, Mayor, Euclid.
       Stare, Frank, Mayor, Newark.
       Liebherr, Raymond, Chief of Police, Fairborn Police 
     Department.
       Mills, James, Mayor, Lebanon.
       Salter, Shirley, Mayor, Lincoln Heights.
       Boldt, Gerald, Mayor, Parma.
       Rawson, Judith, Mayor, Shaker Heights.
       Copeland, Warren, Mayor, Springfield.
       Schaffer, Lee Ann, Mayor, Stow.
       Finkbeiner, Carleton, Mayor, Toledo.
       Fudge, Marcia, Mayor, Warrensville Heights.
       Farley, Susan, Mayor, Woodlawn.
       Rice, Robert, Mayor, Woodmere.


                                oklahoma

       Fox, Helen, Mayor, Grayson.
       Murrell, Marilyn, Mayor, Arcadia.


                                 oregon

       Torrey, Jim, Mayor, Eugene.
       Stein, Beverly, Mayor, County of Multnomah.


                              pennsylvania

       DiGirolamo, Joseph, Mayor, Bensalem.
       Goldsmith, Thomas, Mayor, Easton.
       Street, John, Mayor, Philadelphia.
       Shadle, Forest, County Commissioner, Schuylkill County.
       Young, Wilbert, Mayor, Wilkinsburg.
       Robertson, Charles, Mayor, York.


                              puerto rico

       Marin, William, Mayor, Caguas.
       Lopez Gerena, Julio, Mayor, Humacao.
       Cordero Satiago, Rafael, Mayor, Ponce.


                              rhode island

       O'Leary, John, Mayor, Cranston.
       Cianci, Vincent, Mayor, Providence.
       Avedisian, Scott, Mayor, Warwick.


                             south carolina

       Anderson, Lovith, Mayor, Andrews.
       Carter, John, Mayor, Gray Court.
       Talley, James, Mayor, Spartanburg.


                               tennessee

       Fulmar, Ken, Mayor, Bartlett.
       Dotson, J., Chief, Chattanooga Police Department.


                                 texas

       White, John, Mayor, Ames.
       Aranda, Jose, Mayor, Eagle Pass.
       Saleh, Mary, Mayor, Euless.
       Thurston, Cathy, Mayor, Everman.
       Carreathers, Raymond, Mayor, Prairie View.
       Beatty, Chuck, Mayor, Waxahachie.


                                  utah

       Anderson, Ross, Mayor, Salt Lake City.


                                virgina

       Ward, William, Mayor, Chesapeake.
       Hedgepeth, Roger, Mayor, Blacksburg.
       Archer, Ruby, Mayor, Danville.
       Warren, Druie, Mayor, Lynchburg.
       Frank, Joe, Mayor, Newport News.
       Fraim, Paul, Mayor, Norfolk.
       Holley, James, Mayor, Portsmouth.
       Kaine, Timothy, Mayor, Richmond.
       Oliver, Jerry, Mr., Richmond.
       Bowers, David, Mayor, Roanoke.
       Gaskins, A.L. (Joe), Mr., Roanoke.


                                vermont

       Clavelle, Peter, Mayor, Burlington.


                               washington

       Asmundson, Mark, Mayor, Bellingham.
       Sims, Ron, County Executive, King County.


                             west virginia

       Colombo, Jimmy, Mayor, Parkersburg.


                               wisconsin

       Bauman, Susan, Mayor, Madison.
       Smith, James, Mayor, Racine.

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, officials in the coalition 
sign a pledge saying they support giving a preference to making 
purchases from gun manufacturers that have adopted a set of new gun 
safety and dealer feasibility standards, 411 participants. Cities, 
counties, States and some police departments have joined the coalition 
voluntarily. What do they get from HUD in exchange for their 
membership? Absolutely nothing. Except they know that their police 
departments are buying from a company

[[Page 11796]]

that is manufacturing safer guns. They know that this company has 
worked to prevent gun injuries and keeping gun criminals from getting 
guns. It simply says if firearms are the same in price and quality, 
then the locality would give a preference to the manufacturer that 
makes safer guns. This is a preference, not a straitjacket. It is up to 
the locality to determine how to implement it. This is really a matter 
of local control.
  If Members believe their local officials in Nassau County, New York, 
or Knox, Indiana, should have the option to promote gun safety through 
participation in the coalition, which they have, then they will oppose 
the amendment. This amendment says that communities cannot come 
together to stop gun violence. I again say this amendment states the 
status quo is acceptable. The amendment says that it is permissible to 
ignore the gun violence that has affected our schools and made our 
communities into killing zones. The Congress should not micromanage how 
411 communities around the Nation fight gun violence. The Congress 
should not be able to mandate how a locality does business.

                              {time}  1845

  If a city wants to conduct its business in the society in a 
responsible way, that is the city's business, not the Congress'. We 
should do the right thing and vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to note that LEAA is in support of 
this amendment. They oppose any legislation which would limit the 
sources from which firearms could be procured.
  If this is really gun safety, the police should be the first in the 
country to want this. I understand that a third of the policeman who 
are shot are shot with their own gun. When this technology is mature, 
the police will be the first to support it. The fact that they are not 
supporting this should send a message to us that we do not need to be 
supporting planning in this bill which the Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development could use to require or influence the purchase of 
guns only from those companies that have been coerced into a settlement 
with the government to avoid a long and expensive lawsuit.
  When this technology is mature, it will be there. And us passing 
silly legislation that this amendment would be is not going to hasten 
the orderly development of that technology. There is nobody that I know 
of who does not want safe guns, and the police should be the first who 
would want this, because it would assure their safety because a third 
of them when they are shot are shot with their own gun.
  Furthermore, what this does is to clearly violate longstanding 
Federal procurement regulations, which require that what we are doing 
to purchase is going to be the best value for the dollar, not going to 
be something that supports a political agenda. What this amendment does 
is to make sure that the best firearms are going to be procured to meet 
the requirements of those who are procuring them without any political 
pressure, to give preference to a company that has been coerced by the 
Federal Government into agreeing to something to avoid a lawsuit which 
would cost them a lot of money.
  This could just be the first step. What next? Will the FBI and other 
law enforcement agencies follow HUD if we permit this to go forward. I 
would hope not, because I am sure that what every one of these agencies 
wants, what every one of their members wants is the best firearm, the 
safest firearm to protect them.
  We cannot just legislate safety. Safety has to come from development. 
And when that development is there, the first people who are going to 
support this are the law enforcement officials themselves. They are now 
opposing what is in this legislation. They are supporting this 
amendment. That should send a clear message to us that the right vote 
on this amendment is a yes vote.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal of 
Massachusetts).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, quickly in reference to what 
the previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), said 
before I enter into my formal remarks, the gentleman said we cannot 
legislate safety. We do with automobiles. We decide what kind of sheets 
and pillow cases infants sleep on.
  We make sure that all sorts of precautions are taken every day for 
the youngest among us, to ensure their safety. The argument we somehow 
cannot legislate safety.
  Let us be clear about the purpose of this amendment that is offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). His objective is very 
simple and it is to put Smith & Wesson out of business.
  I represent the city where Smith & Wesson is located. They 
essentially are being punished for doing the right thing. This is sound 
public policy, not policy that was put upon them. It was negotiated 
after months of intense conversations back and forth.
  What Smith & Wesson said in this historic agreement is this, and I 
want everybody to listen to this, they want to change the way guns are 
designed, distributed and marketed.
  They want to add locking devices and other safety features, and they 
wanted to develop landmark smart gun technology. We ask ourselves in 
this Chamber who could be against all of that? Then we look to the 
other side; and we see who could be against this sensible public policy 
position, for their courage, Smith & Wesson is now being penalized by 
the gun lobby, House Republicans who adamantly oppose common sense 
safety legislation, legislation that the vast majority of the American 
people overwhelmingly support. Every year, 30,000 Americans including 
almost 12 children a day are killed by gun violence.
  Why do Members of this House fear the advancement of smart gun 
technology? Who could be opposed to the meaningful development of a 
firearm that can only be used by its rightful owner, and who would 
prevent children in the end from accidentally discharging these 
weapons? Why are the people on the other side of the aisle in this 
Chamber trying to thwart the unprecedented agreement between Smith & 
Wesson and the Clinton administration.
  Many times I have found myself on the other side of an initiative 
that Smith & Wesson would not be comfortable with, but I want to tell 
my colleagues something, they are a great employer. And that term Smith 
& Wesson is synonymous over many, many years of American history with a 
quality product that they, indeed, want to make better to speak to the 
concerns of the American people.
  It is no threat to the second amendment, which we frequently hear in 
this Chamber, and the Clinton administration has proceeded with wise 
and warranted public policy that speaks to the concerns of the American 
people in advancing what most people would believe to be a highly 
sensible initiative, smart gun technology, trigger locks.
  But the idea that Smith & Wesson would enter into protracted 
negotiations with the administration, come up with a marvelous solution 
that we would think everybody in this Chamber could come to agreement 
upon, they find themselves isolated. They find themselves set upon by 
the gun lobby. They find themselves set upon by an element that wants 
no sort of gun legislation in this country.
  In the end, all of us this evening have an opportunity to vote up or 
down on what is perhaps the most sensible initiative that has come 
forth over many years on the whole question of how to deal with guns in 
this society, and we will have a chance to be recorded later on, and 
that is the vote that people ought to remember in November.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 11797]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some comments that have been 
made by the other side in this argument, and that is that Congress 
should not micromanage local law enforcement. I would agree with that 
100 percent, but neither should HUD, and that is exactly what is 
happening in this process; that is why this Congress is defunding the 
micromanagement of local law enforcement by HUD through this amendment.
  Secondly, the argument is made that Congress should not tie the hands 
of local government, and that is not what this amendment does either. 
This amendment merely states that Federal taxpayers will not give money 
to HUD to micromanage local law enforcement. We are not saying, for 
example, that if local government wishes to deprive their law 
enforcement personnel of the best equipment and, therefore, compromise 
the safety of their law enforcement officers and the public safety, 
they are more than welcome to do so, I just do not believe and I think 
a majority of this House does not believe that the Congress should be a 
party to that.
  Thirdly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) just spoke just 
said that as a result of this amendment, we are going to run Smith & 
Wesson out of business. It could not be further from the truth. In 
fact, Smith & Wesson will still be able to continue to compete and 
potentially win contracts.
  We simply do not believe there should be a preference in those 
contracts; and if Smith & Wesson does indeed have the best product at 
the best price, they will win these competitions and win these 
contracts.
  I would say to the gentleman with regard to that issue, if Smith & 
Wesson is the only company that enters into this type of agreement, 
which they are at this point, and they are the preferred contractor, 
what incentive will be there for Smith & Wesson to create a better 
quality product if there is no competition to obtain a higher quality 
product? Smith & Wesson could quite simply produce a much lower quality 
product as a result of a political agenda that is being forwarded and 
not the consideration of law enforcement safety and public safety. 
Smith & Wesson will get the agreement with the lower quality product.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a very common sensical amendment. 
I think the Law Enforcement Alliance of America believes the same 
thing. The Fraternal Order of Police believes this is common sensical, 
and I would ask the majority of the House to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am here to express my opposition to the 
Hostettler amendment. To me, this is the most mean-spirited amendment I 
have ever seen on this floor. It cuts to the chase. It prohibits the 
Office of Housing and Urban Development from using funds to administer 
HUD's Community for Safer Guns Coalition. What does the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) have against the Communities for Safer Guns 
Coalition? I cannot figure it out.
  First the gentleman was against every legislative mandate. The 
gentleman is against it. Now, we do not have a mandate, what we are 
saying is we have an agreement between the administration and a 
company. We did not pass any legislation for the Clinton administration 
to come to that agreement. This is something the gentleman should 
support. The gentleman is proactive about it.
  The Communities for Safer Guns Coalition keeps guns out of the hands 
of criminals and children. I know the gentleman supports that. How can 
the gentleman support this amendment? It closes the gun show loophole. 
I do not know if the gentleman supports that. It cuts down on straw 
purchasing. The gentleman supports that, do you not? It mandates full 
background checks for all purchases.
  I think these are important steps towards making our streets safer. 
Does it take one gun away from anybody? One of the program's strengths 
is that it starts in the community and stays in the community. This is 
a movement of local and State leaders who have pledged to support 
giving a preference in firearm purchases to companies who follow a code 
of responsible conduct.
  These advances that you have heard on the floor just a few moments 
ago all help law enforcement by making guns less attractive to 
criminals and making it harder for bad apple dealers to supply 
criminals. After all the ATF reports that just 1.2 percent of dealers 
account for 57 percent of gun crime traces to active dealers.
  There is 411 communities at this point, at this very moment that have 
signed on. A vote to stop the coalition is a vote to support less 
responsible gun makers and less responsible dealers.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone of us to vote against this ill-
conceived amendment.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). I guess the gentleman can see the equation 
from either side. I guess the way that I would see it, and some on this 
side of the aisle would see it, would be that by prohibiting local law 
enforcement agencies from choosing I guess the equipment or the gun 
manufacture of their choice, it seems to me to be more coercive and it 
seems to be a case rather than a local choice being made, it is 
actually a case of being directed from above.
  Two, I would say to me this is about the whole fundamental breakdown 
of government that our Founding Fathers intended with the legislative 
branch being responsible for one area of government, the executive 
branch being responsible for another, and the judicial final for 
another.
  What we have here with this agreement is the executive branch going 
into the business of creation of laws or lawmaking, because there are 
two new Federal programs, the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition and 
the Oversight Commission, both of which would be created by executive 
branch activity without the authorization of Congress, without the 
Hostettler amendment.
  I simply rise in support of his amendment. Finally, I would make the 
point in that they are legitimately different perspectives on this 
thing, and I come from down South and I guess we have a different take 
on the whole gun equation down there, but for me, I do not like the 
idea of smart technology because the idea of an intruder breaking into 
our house and my fingerprint being the only one that could stop that 
intruder with a given handgun, to me is not a good idea.
  I would like the idea of me being able to hand the gun to my daughter 
or to my young son or to the neighbor who is visiting to help in 
stopping that intruder. I think there is a legitimate difference of 
opinion on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
be granted one additional minute.
  Mr. WALSH. We have a very strict time agreement. I have to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment because this amendment runs counter to what the American 
people have repeatedly asked Congress to do, make our children and our 
communities safer.
  This amendment just does not make any sense. The Smith & Wesson 
agreement includes common sense measures, like internal safety locks, 
development of smart gun technology to ensure that only a gun owner can 
discharge the firearm, child safety trigger locks, and

[[Page 11798]]

other provisions aimed at reducing the number of accidental shootings 
and deaths due to gun violence. Smith & Wesson has also pledged to 
cooperate with Federal, State and local law enforcement to ensure that 
its products are used safely and legally.
  Agreements such as these should be encouraged, not penalized. This 
irresponsible amendment, in my judgment, sends the wrong message to 
manufacturers trying to demonstrate their own accountability for the 
safety of those who use their products.
  Codes of conduct by firearm manufacturers will make our communities 
and streets safer. They will strengthen law enforcement's efforts to 
enforce our Nation's firearms laws by ensuring that background checks 
are performed and improving ballistics technology; and they will 
protect our children from the tragic accidental shootings that end far 
too many innocent lives.
  Congress should heed the call of the American people, who have told 
us loud and clear that they support common sense initiatives to make 
firearms safer and to keep them out of the hands of children. I urge my 
colleagues, listen to your neighbors, listen to our friends. Let us 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the naming of this coalition, 
The Communities for Safer Guns Coalition, is simply a name given to it 
by an entity which seeks to forward a political agenda. If the truth be 
told, according to our correspondence from the Law Enforcement Alliance 
of America and the Fraternal Order of Police, that have written the 
Congress, a more appropriate name would probably be something like 
this, and I apologize for its length. It would probably be The 
Communities for Compromising Law Enforcement Personnel and Public 
Safety in Order to Forward a Political Agenda Coalition. That is what 
the true name of the coalition should be.
  We should not forward that political agenda and we should not run 
around with the intent of Congress by doing so. I would have to say I 
will be offering an amendment subsequent to this discussion, Amendment 
No. 25, that will actually talk about the Smith & Wesson agreement 
itself. We have heard a lot of discussion about the Smith & Wesson 
agreement, but this amendment is actually to stop HUD from creating 
this environment of preferences for purchase of firearms for local law 
enforcement.
  The gentleman talked about various issues that we should all commonly 
be opposed to, and he made some points; but some of the points that he 
made were a little bit outdated in that the gentleman from New Jersey 
said we should all be opposed to straw purchases. Straw purchases are 
actually in opposition to Federal law today; and, in fact, we know a 
young lady in connection to the Columbine tragedy actually made a straw 
purchase and broke the law as it stands today.
  So this agreement is not going to stop criminals that will break the 
law anyway. That is why we call them criminals. It will simply create 
an environment whereby local law enforcement agencies will feel 
compelled to purchase equipment that may or may not be in their best 
interests; and as a result of that, they may compromise not only the 
safety of their personnel, which is heinous enough, but it would also 
compromise the safety of the public at large.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, one thing I will say, this 
is all voluntary. The coalition has come forward freely on this; and 
this, in my opinion, will help and save police officers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) is offering amendments to weaken HUD's ability 
to fight crime in our neighborhoods. The Republican leadership in the 
House has done everything in its power to promote the NRA agenda. They 
have killed the common sense gun safety measures that the American 
people have demanded for over a year. They have blocked trigger locks 
and failed to close the gun show loophole. They have blatantly ignored 
the request of the Million Mom March for licensing and registration of 
all handguns.
  Now the Republicans are trying to prevent gun makers from making 
safer products. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) wants to 
prevent Smith & Wesson from developing safer guns with internal trigger 
locks and safe gun technology. I guess the purpose must be the guns 
should be as unsafe and dangerous as possible. It is truly 
unbelievable.
  Over 400 communities are participating in HUD's Communities for Safer 
Guns Coalition, working to make our streets a little safer. Because of 
their actions at local levels, Smith & Wesson agreed to require their 
dealers to close the gun show loophole, require background checks for 
all sales, limit the delivery of multiple purchases, limit children's 
access to weapons, and a few other things to keep guns out of the hand 
of criminals and children.
  We should be doing everything we can to support these communities in 
the struggle to limit gun violence. The Hostettler amendment is 
actually worse than anything else the Republican leadership has 
proposed this year in this respect. In the past, we were fighting for 
additional protections to save our people from gun violence. Today, we 
are fighting to preserve what little protections we have managed to 
achieve already.
  This is a dangerous proposal, and I fear the American people will pay 
for it dearly in communities across the Nation. Secretary Cuomo and HUD 
should be commended, and this amendment should be defeated.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership 
once again of the gentlewoman from New York.
  I was surprised by this. We have debated gun regulation, and the 
arguments have always been we should not interfere with the right of an 
individual to own a gun. This has got nothing to do with that. What we 
now see is that what we have got is an animus against trying to improve 
gun technology.
  This does not interfere with anybody's right to own a gun. This is 
not an amendment; it is a dangling participle. It rewrites the second 
amendment. The second amendment will now say, ``A well-regulated 
militia being necessary for the security of the people, let's not have 
any smart guns in local police forces.''
  This is total disconnect between all of the previous arguments about 
gun regulation. Individuals will be totally free to buy guns. What this 
says is HUD will not coerce, but will work with and cooperate with 
local police departments and local governments that want to purchase 
safer guns.
  It is not an accident that two of the previous speakers against this 
amendment were former mayors of tough urban areas, who understand the 
importance of law enforcement. This is a cooperative effort, and as my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, said, there is an animus 
against Smith & Wesson.
  The gentleman from Indiana said, ``Well, you won't have competition 
if this happens, because if Smith & Wesson gets a preference for 
selling smart gun technology, where will the incentive be to improve 
it?''
  I will tell you where it will be, from all of the other 
manufacturers. That is precisely what we want. We want to encourage a 
competition for the best smart gun technology. One way you do that, one 
way to increase that supply, is to increase the demand.
  So what this is is a cooperative effort, led by HUD but fully 
voluntary on the part of the cities, to increase the demand for smart 
gun technology, knowing that that will lead to an increase in the 
supply. I understand people's objections when individuals are

[[Page 11799]]

concerned, although I do not agree; but this can only be an objection 
to the principles of safer guns.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       At the end of title IV (relating to General Provisions), 
     add the following new section:
       Sec. 426. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration--human space flight'', and increasing the 
     amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
     DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--housing certificate 
     fund (hcf)'' for use only for incremental assistance under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f), by $344,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed 
each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and I are 
offering this amendment to increase funding to provide for 60,000 new 
section 8 vouchers to help low-income families afford safe, decent 
housing. The bill before us provides for zero new section 8 vouchers.
  The need for housing assistance remains staggering. The Nation's 
robust economic growth has sent housing prices soaring. Today, a record 
5.4 million low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their 
income for rent, or live in severely substandard housing. Not one of 
these 5.4 million families receives any Federal housing assistance. 
Their needs are desperate, and we must not ignore the severity of these 
needs any longer.
  I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do 
not achieve their goals. The approximately 3 million families, that is 
almost 7 million Americans, receive section 8 vouchers. For these 
families, section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy, it is often 
the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self-
sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing 
market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from 
the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our 
communities. As was said yesterday, section 8 is a free-market approach 
pioneered by the radical Nixon administration.
  The bill in its current form does a terrible disservice to those most 
in need. The administration's request for 120,000 new section 8 
vouchers has been ignored, and there is not one dollar in this bill for 
new vouchers to address the worst case housing needs of our most 
vulnerable citizens. The bill merely holds out the possibility of 
20,000 vouchers, unlikely to be funded since they are contingent on 
overly optimistic levels of section 8 recaptures.
  Rather than building on the successful provision of 50,000 or 60,000 
incremental vouchers the past 2 years, this bill would contribute to 
the growing backlog of families who cannot afford decent, safe and 
sanitary housing, by going from 60,000 new housing vouchers last year 
to zero this year, this at a time of incredible prosperity and huge 
budget surpluses.
  Let me mention one other point. Some may ask why we ought to provide 
new housing for vouchers when existing funding is not spent quickly. 
Why is desperately needed money not spent right away? The answer is 
that the housing crisis is so severe right now that many families are 
having real difficulty using vouchers because they cannot find any 
apartments to rent that are affordable, that are within the limits of 
the voucher.
  The Federal Government should be doing more to build affordable 
housing, but this bill actually reduces Federal assistance for 
production of new low-income housing. But that is beyond the scope of 
this amendment.
  Our amendment will allow 60,000 more families to live in safe, 
affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We only ask that 
we meet about 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in our 
Nation.
  The money is there. In fact 100,000 new section 8 vouchers have been 
authorized for this coming fiscal year. The bill as currently written 
reneges on the national commitment to create decent, affordable 
housing, and fails to fulfill the promise Congress made to poor 
families in the Housing Act of 1998, which authorized 100,000 new 
section 8 vouchers for next year.
  Mr. Chairman, we must house our people. We ought to fulfill that 
promise and adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) claim the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, which is a proposed reduction of $344 million, or a 20 
percent cut, from the International Space Station budget. That is an 
astounding cut and would cripple the program.
  There are currently two elements of the Space Station in orbit. Most 
of the remaining elements have been constructed and are in Florida 
waiting for final testing. In the next few weeks, Russia is going to be 
launching the third element of the Space Station, which will enable the 
United States to move forward with launch and assembly of the station.
  The reduction proposed by the amendment would severely disrupt the 
revised assembly schedule and cause significant cost increases to the 
program. Specifically, the cuts proposed by the amendment would result 
in the following programmatic change: cancellation of the U.S. 
Propulsion Module program, cancellation of the Crew Return Vehicle 
Development program, and cancellation of logistics flight hardware 
support.

                              {time}  1915

  On the transfer to section 8, first of all, I am delighted to know 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is a fan of Richard 
Nixon. I was not aware of that, and I am proud of his acknowledgment of 
that fact. Very few people are willing to acknowledge that today.
  Secondly, can we imagine if a Republican President had a housing 
administration that, in effect, denied 237,000 Americans access to 
housing vouchers. Can we imagine the outcry from the other side if a 
Republican President had this terrible record of not providing 237,000 
American citizens housing, funds appropriated by the Congress. It would 
be unbelievable.
  The fact of the matter is, we have provided and fully funded the 
section 8 voucher program. If we put more money into that program with 
this attack on the Space Station, it will not be spent. Over $1 billion 
last year was provided to HUD for section 8 vouchers; they did not 
spend it. The Administration came back, recaptured those funds and then 
spent it somewhere else. We cannot continue to allow HUD to be the bank 
for the Administration's priorities, especially at this late point in 
the process. We cannot steal money from NASA, providing it to HUD, and 
allow it to go unspent and then God knows where it goes in a 
reprogramming.
  So this is not a wise amendment. We have strongly supported section 8

[[Page 11800]]

vouchers. It is a Republican idea. We are proud of that fact. But let 
us make it work better, I say to my colleagues on the other side. Let 
us make this program work better to benefit all of those Americans out 
there who need and deserve good housing.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to offer this amendment 
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my esteemed colleague, 
who has worked for many years on affordable housing issues.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest mistakes we can make during a time 
of great prosperity is to turn our backs on those who have been left 
out of the economic mainstream. This country is experiencing an 
economic boom, the likes of which we have not seen in a generation. But 
it would be a grave mistake to forget that many people have not been 
included in this financial good fortune. It is times like this when it 
is more important than ever to help with issues like this.
  The last time the VA-HUD bill was being debated on the floor, I spoke 
about the affordable housing emergency we were facing. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, it is a year later, and the predicament in this country has 
increased. One of the lifelines that low-income families count on is 
the section 8 voucher program, and the bill before us today does not 
allot one more dollar for new vouchers. This is not acceptable for the 
harsh reality we are facing today.
  During this debate, we will undoubtedly hear the argument, in fact, 
we just did, that we do not need to fund additional section 8 vouchers. 
We will hear that renewing expiring vouchers is enough. We might hear, 
and, in fact, we did, that some fiscal year 2000 vouchers might be 
recaptured; and we will hear that this is enough.
  The truth is, though, and I would ask my colleagues to consider this, 
there are over 12 million Americans, men, women and children, who are 
considered to have worst-case housing needs. The average waiting period 
for either a section 8 housing voucher or a space in a public housing 
unit is over 2 years. We have all the proof that we need that 
additional vouchers are desperately needed.
  While it is true that there are some cases where there are recaptured 
vouchers, that is not because there is not a need; it is because there 
are technical problems that are now going to be fixed, we hope, within 
rulemaking in HUD. But the truth is, these families who are waiting 
over 2 years need section 8 housing vouchers.
  Let me talk about my district, the First Congressional District of 
Colorado, where rents have soared in the past 10 years as a result of a 
red hot economy. Between 1995 and 1999, rents in the Denver area rose 
more than 20 percent, growth matched only by that in the San Francisco 
Bay area. There is great irony that the areas that are experiencing the 
most economic growth are also the ones where working families are 
priced right out of the housing market.
  Affordable housing is not a problem that exists in a vacuum, and it 
will negatively affect our economy if we do not ensure that all 
Americans have effective housing. We need more section 8 vouchers, not 
less.
  Now, we have heard how much we need the Space Station; and I always 
vote and, in fact, just voted a little while earlier this evening, to 
support the Space Station, unlike many of my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle.
  However, if we have to make the choice between our citizens, our 
lower-income citizens living in housing and having section 8 vouchers 
and taking a little money away from the Space Station, the choice is 
clear to me.
  The international Space Station is $2.1 billion, and this offset is 
$344 million. We do not kill the Space Station with this amendment. 
Rather, what we say is, we will move it a little bit more slowly so 
that we can give the millions of low-income Americans that need them 
section 8 vouchers.
  I say to my colleagues, the majority that wrote this bill have put us 
in this situation of having to make this very real and very tough 
choice; and the reason is because they put nothing in the bill to fund 
the section 8 vouchers that are needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Nadler-DeGette amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
point out to the gentlewoman that we put $13 billion in this bill for 
section 8 vouchers.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would agree, I would assume, 
that none of the money in the bill is for new section 8 vouchers.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we put in 10,000 
additional vouchers by using the recapture money from last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to, in part, associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentlewoman from Colorado. While I do not agree with her ultimate 
position, I would suggest that the reason we are in this tough position 
is because of the budget that the majority has come forward with and 
the stingy allocation that it results in for not only this 
subcommittee, but for all appropriation subcommittees.
  That is what the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
the ranking member, has spoken to so eloquently throughout this 
process, the fact that we have a budget agreement supported and written 
by the majority which is totally unrealistic and totally inadequate 
when we come over to the other part of the budget process, and that is 
the appropriation process. That is why we do not have enough money in 
this bill for vouchers and for NASA and for science research. That is 
the problem that we are really confronted with; and we all can only 
hope that as the process moves forward, we will get additional 
allocation, and money will come; and certainly with the performance of 
the economy, that is justified.
  We do not need to starve domestic discretionary programs in this time 
of prosperity. We do not need to have people in need of housing; we do 
not need to have homeless that are not being cared for. We do not need 
to choose between Space Station and the science programs and housing or 
any other programs. So I wanted to agree with the gentlewoman. Except, 
making the distinction that in our committee, given our allocation, I 
really do want to compliment the chairman for doing the very best job 
he could; and I know he looks forward to the day that we might get 
additional allocation.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much of my time I have used in 
speaking to that, but I want to suggest that I have no disagreement 
with the gentleman's objective of adding funding for incremental 
section 8 housing vouchers, housing assistance vouchers. I know that 
the chairman has supported that; and hopefully, as time goes forward 
and we get that additional allocation, we can be more responsive to 
that.
  Unfortunately, my disagreement with the gentleman stems from his 
proposition to cut the appropriation for human space flight. This is 
the account that funds the Space Station and the Space Shuttle, and it 
is hard to see how a cut of this proportion will not have a severe 
impact on both of these programs.
  His offering the amendment and the concerns expressed by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado are just expressions of the frustration we 
are all having in having to deal with a totally unrealistic budget 
resolution. The inadequacies reflect themselves when we come to the 
appropriations process.
  So unfortunately, I am going to have to rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, while still being supportive of the objective of 
the amendments.

[[Page 11801]]


  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the ranking minority member 
of the subcommittee has quite cogently pointed out the fundamental 
problem with this budget. I would say to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), although I am about to disagree with his most recent 
arguments, that none of us have any criticism to make of the very good 
job he did in a very bad situation. We believe he did the best he could 
with what he was handed. What he was handed, probably the EPA should 
not let anyone hand him, but he did not have any choice about that.
  Now, the one thing that I disagree with that he said, suppose a 
Republican President had a Secretary of HUD; can we imagine a 
Republican President having a Secretary of HUD who handled the program 
so badly. I do not have to imagine it. I remember Sam Pierce in the 
golden days of Ronald Reagan, when Sam Pierce was the Secretary of HUD 
for 8 years. Ronald Reagan thought he was a mayor, the only time he 
apparently ever met him; and Sam Pierce was, to use a technical term, 
disgraceful. He was incompetent, he enabled corruption. More people 
from that administration went to prison for misuse of HUD. So the 
notion that somehow we want to get back to the golden days of the 
Republican administration of HUD is not persuasive.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the point that I was trying to make was, 
there should be an outcry today also. As then, there should be now.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
have to say to the gentleman if that was the point he was trying to 
make, I do not understand why he made a totally different one.
  I was quoting him when he said, if a Republican President did this, 
we would have an outcry. A Republican President did much worse. In 
fact, I think the current administration of HUD is doing a very good 
job in difficult circumstances. I think there is a misperception about 
the section 8 program.
  The section 8 program is not one undifferentiated pile here in 
Washington that is doled out from Washington. It is broken up, it is 
allocated among thousands of jurisdictions, and the rate at which 
section 8 is utilized depends on the jurisdictions, the administrative 
efficiency in the jurisdictions, the rents that go up in the 
jurisdictions, the difficulty that people have in those jurisdictions 
of finding housing. I know of section 8 vouchers that have gone unused 
in my own district because the rents have been so high. Indeed, there 
is probably a logic in linking this to the Space Station, because 
pretty soon it is going to be as about as expensive to live in parts of 
Boston and San Francisco as it is to get them up there in the Space 
Station.
  The section 8 program is a decentralized program in its 
administration, and the failure to have a 100 percent utilization rate 
is inherent in the program. There are also, of course, situations where 
people's incomes go up and there is more money, so we do not use as 
much money for that; but there is a pattern with the distribution which 
leads, in many cases, to vouchers not being used. I do not believe it 
is possible to get 100 percent utilization. It is possible to get a 
high rate, and the more vouchers we vote, the more vouchers we will get 
in the hands of the people, given that there is an inevitable slippage 
in a program administered in this fashion.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1930

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an uncomfortable position when we have to match 
oranges and apples, and we have to stretch a penny for programs that we 
advocate for. Let me also acknowledge that this debate on the 
appropriations bill for VA-HUD has been one of the more civil debates, 
because there is a lot of agreement on money issues. One is we need 
more money for needed programs.
  I happen to be a very strong supporter of what Section 8 vouchers do. 
In fact, I was on the floor recently saying that the provision that 
allows Section 8 vouchers to be utilized for the purchasing of homes is 
a very important new feature of this housing program to allow low-
income to buy homes.
  But I am saddened to rise to oppose this amendment because of the 
$344 million that is taken out of the International Space Station. I 
think this again raises the question, and I do not know if we will ever 
get to do this, of separating out these independent agencies from these 
very large programs like VA and HUD; not to say that these other 
independent agencies are not important, but they have a narrow focus, 
and their focus is important.
  HUD is suffering from the fact that these other agencies have funding 
and HUD does not have enough. However, the Space Station funding and 
the NASA budget has been flat for almost 5 years. In fact, it has a 
flat 5-year budget, to a certain extent.
  The Space Station has been on an orderly funding cycle. It has 
utilized the money efficiently. It is almost completed. It is a project 
that most Americans would support or do support, believing that it does 
provide the kind of research that we ultimately need in finding cures 
for diabetes, heart disease, and stroke; and other difficult diseases, 
so there is a viable role for the Space Station. It helps us with 
creating work for the 21st century in the research that can be done 
there.
  This $344 million, 20 percent of its budget would literally kill that 
program. This is not to say that there is not a need for Section 8 
vouchers. I do recognize the need for Section 8.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would hope is that we will find our way in 
conference to be able to respond to the needs for affordable housing 
for Americans. I will support that effort. That should be the 
commitment of this House. But I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that to gut 
an independent agency program that has been efficient and consistently 
doing its job with the monies that have been allocated would be unfair 
and would be ill-timed, at this time.
  I support the Space Station. I unfortunately have to oppose this 
amendment. I would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and 
let's work together to pass a final VA-HUD bill that puts more money 
for housing in the Conference Report.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Nadler-Degette amendment to 
H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.
  We cannot squander this historic opportunity to invest in America's 
future; if approved, this amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations 
measure risks doing just that.
  Despite the shortcomings of the VA-HUD appropriation measure, there 
are some commitments that have been secured and need to be preserved. 
Our ability to reach the stars is an important priority, which will 
ensure that America remains the preeminent country for space 
exploration.
  Although this measure is destined to be vetoed in its current form, I 
believe the $13.7 billion appropriation, $322 million (2%) less than 
requested by the administration, could have been even more generous.
  The Nadler-DeGette amendment seeks to appropriate $344 million for 
120,000 Section 8 incremental (new) vouchers to provide assistance to 
additional low-income families. Regrettably, the amendment offsets this 
appropriation by slashing funding for the international space station 
by an equal amount. Mr. Chairman, the adoption of such a funding 
decrease for the international space station would essentially destroy 
the program.
  Although many of us would have clearly preferred to vote on a bill 
that includes more funding for vouchers to provide assistance to low-
income families, the Veterans Administration and

[[Page 11802]]

National Science Foundation programs, such increases should not offset 
the money appropriated for our international space station.
  The measure provides $2.1 billion for continued development of the 
international space station, and $3.2 billion for space shuttle 
operations. We need to devote additional personnel at NASA's Human 
Flight Centers to ensure that the high skill and staffing levels are in 
place to operate the Space Shuttle safely and to launch, as well as 
assemble the International Space Station.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud the Johnson Space Center and its many 
accomplishments, and I promise to remain a vocal supporter of NASA and 
its creative programs. NASA has had a brilliant 40 years, and I see no 
reason why it could not have another 40 successful years. It has made a 
tremendous impact on the business and residential communities of the 
18th Congressional District of Texas, and the rest of the nation.
  In closing, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment and 
the bill so that we can get back to work on a common sense measure that 
invests in America's future, makes affordable housing a reality across 
America, and keeps our vital NASA program strong well into the 21st 
century.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise very enthusiastically to support the 
Nadler-DeGette amendment to increase funding for incremental Section 8 
housing vouchers.
  President Clinton requested 120,000 new or incremental Section 8 
housing vouchers to alleviate America's housing crisis. The majority's 
2001 appropriations bill provides zero funding for new this-year 
vouchers. Given America's shortage of affordable housing, this bill 
should provide funding to expand the amount of Section 8 housing 
assistance available to America's families.
  I know that the gentleman from New York and the distinguished ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), have both 
spoken against this amendment because the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) did the best he could with what he had.
  However, sadly, the budget figures that went into this produced a bad 
result. As I have said over and over again in this appropriations 
process, the reason so many great mathematicians come out of MIT is 
that so many great mathematicians go into MIT. If we have a bad budget 
allocation that goes into the bill, we can only come out with a bad 
appropriations bill. That is just most unfortunate.
  What is the need for this? This amendment adds 60,000 incremental 
Section 8 housing vouchers, half of what the President requested, for a 
total of $344 million. HUD estimates the need as being more than 4.4 
million Americans who suffer worse-case housing needs, pay more than 
half their income for rent, or are living in substandard housing.
  This amendment will assist only a small percentage of those in worst-
case households. We should do more. Nonetheless, this amendment is very 
important and would help low-income renters afford rental housing.
  According to HUD's most recent 2000 State of the Cities report, 
California is experiencing an inequitable economic growth and an 
inequitable distribution of wealth. As the gentlewoman from Colorado 
pointed out, we are having problems with our success. As our economy 
flourishes, our housing costs rise, making problems for those who need 
affordable housing. This amendment would go a long way to help them.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will work on the assumption that there is some 
misunderstanding, as opposed to the direct attempt to confuse. I really 
believe that. I think there is just some misunderstanding here.
  It has been said twice now that there is no money in this budget for 
new incremental vouchers. I will read from the bill, page 23 of the 
bill, that says, ``Provided further, that of the total amount provided 
under this heading, up to $60 million shall be made available for 
incremental vouchers under Section 8 of the Act on a fair share basis 
to those public housing authorities that have 97 percent occupancy 
rate.''
  Mr. Chairman, that translates into over 14,000 new, I would emphasize 
new, Section 8 housing vouchers. So I understand that we have 
disagreements over priorities, but we really have to deal on the floor 
on the basis of fact. The facts are that we have provided $60 million 
for new incremental vouchers to the tune of 14,000.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last 2 years we, this Congress, funded 
respectively 50,000 new vouchers and 60,000 new vouchers, after a 
number of years at zero. Now we are told we are going back to zero.
  The Administration requested 120,000 new Section 8 vouchers. The bill 
provides none. The amendment asks for 60,000. We are told that the bill 
does provide for new vouchers from recaptures. The fact is, the 
expected amount of recapture money available is already anticipated in 
the bill and has been given to four other priorities before new Section 
8 vouchers, so we do not expect that there will be any new substantial 
amount of money from those recaptures available for new vouchers, 
number one.
  Number two, there are millions and millions of people at need. We 
should be doing hundreds of thousands, and even if some of that money 
is recaptured, it is not nearly sufficient for the need.
  Now we are told we should not take this money, 16 percent, we should 
not reduce the budget for the Space Station by 16 percent in order to 
provide half as many new vouchers as the administration requested. I 
voted against the Space Station, so I cannot say I would like to see 
the money given.
  But the fact is, even if Members support the Space Station, a 16 
percent reduction will not materially delay it. It is certainly worth 
providing 60,000 people with decent housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I will also say that this is a decentralized program. 
Not every local housing authority is tremendously efficient. Therefore, 
they do not use every one. Also, very often when people get a Section 8 
voucher it takes them months to find housing within the limits, or 
maybe they cannot even afford it. That is why money is not spent, 
necessarily. It does not mean we do not need the money.
  I would urge that we adopt this amendment and provide the money we 
need.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman rhetorically 
if he would rather have the Administration use those recaptured funds 
for Kosovo, like they did last year?
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I am not here to defend the 
Administration, whatever it uses or does not use recaptured funds for. 
I am simply saying, 60,000 new Section 8 units, even if we could 
recapture some and get 10,000 more, that is little enough, a piddling 
sum. We should not be in the position of having to choose between the 
Space Station and 60,000 new vouchers.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon), and then I will close.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand 
very well the gentleman's concerns from New York City, but if we take 
this amount of money out of the Space Station program, we are 
effectively going to kill it. This program is operating on absolutely 
no margin. It has been cut repeatedly by this Congress.
  We have a load of hardware built and ready to fly. The Russian module 
was supposed to launch next month. The missions are essentially stacked 
up.

[[Page 11803]]

Cutting this amount of money in my opinion is going to be potentially 
lethal to the program. The gentleman has admitted that he voted against 
the Space Station, so a cutting amendment like this that is going to 
kill it I am sure is no offense to him.
  Might I just add, I understand there are some legitimate issues in 
housing, but I believe HUD is being plussed up $4 billion in this VA-
HUD bill that we are taking up today. NASA has been declining for the 
past 7 years. I would support the chairman on this issue.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge we reject this amendment. The 
Space Station is ready to go. This 20 percent cut in the program would 
kill the program, and all the science and good will that goes with the 
program.
  It is a very important program. As I mentioned earlier, we have young 
people all over the world who will participate in this. Seeing their 
parents and their countries cooperating globally to conduct a major 
science project is an inspiration.
  We need to inspire young people today, especially certainly towards 
idealism and altruism, but also towards math and science, which is what 
this program is all about.
  Lastly, to take the funds out of a program that needs the money and 
put it into a program that is, for all intents and purposes, fully 
funded is a mistake. So I would strongly urge that we reject this 
amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Nadler/DeGette 
Amendment to increase funding for new Section 8 housing vouchers.
  HUD estimates that over 5.4 million low-income renter families spend 
more than half of their incomes on housing or live in severely 
substandard housing. This bill would contribute to the growing backlog 
of families who can't afford decent, safe and sanitary housing.
  In New York City we are experiencing a severe shortage of affordable 
housing. The need for the Section 8 vouchers is so overwhelming that 
the New York City Housing Authority closed the waiting list for this 
program in December of 1994. No other applications have been accepted 
for 66 months. Yet despite this drastic measure, as of January 1st of 
this year, there were still 215,385 families on the Section 8 waiting 
list in New York City.
  We are experiencing a housing crisis in our nation's urban 
communities. Section 8 vouchers serve as a safety net for thousands of 
working families. The Nadler/DeGette Amendment ensures that this safety 
net continues to be available. In a time of unprecedented economic 
prosperity, it is shameful to continue to ignore the basic needs of our 
poorest citizens.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Nadler/
DeGette Amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendments offered by the gentleman from New York. Quite simply, they 
threaten our long-term future. This amendment will transfer $344 
million out of NASA's Human Space Flight account and put it in HUD's 
Section 8 program.
  The space program is part of our national science and technology 
enterprise. We all know that our current economy owes much of its 
success to forty years of federal investments in science and 
technology. That federal effort generates the pre-competitive 
breakthroughs in science and technology that make day-to-day 
applications possible in the future. Because that benefit is long-term, 
most of us will not be in this Chamber to see the benefits of the 
decisions we make today, just as the Members who nurtured our science 
and technology program forty years ago have left this body to enjoy the 
political benefits of their support for the space program. Thus, 
there's little political payoff in advocating science and technology.
  That's why science and technology demand statesmanship and long-term 
vision. Federal investments serve the good of the country and the 
future of our grandchildren. Fortunately, this Chamber has repeatedly 
demonstrated the long-term vision needed for our nation's science and 
technology programs in space. It did so last year by rejecting similar 
amendments and preserving funding for the space program. It should do 
so again this year, by maintaining the space program as a high priority 
and voting against the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Nadler-DeGette Amendment to appropriate $344 million for 60,000 section 
8 incremental (new vouchers) to provide housing assistance to low 
income families.
  First of all Mr. Chairman, we know that the overall appropriation 
recommended for VA-HUD is too low, which forces us into an either-or 
situation. Either we shortchange some of the pressing needs which are 
most immediate, or we delay development of new horizons and new 
opportunities like space exploration; and I tell you Mr. Chairman, I, 
like countless others want to see us is space as much, as often and in 
as many ways as we can possibly be. But, Mr. Chairman, I also recognize 
that there are thousands of people in my district alone who live in 
dilapidated buildings with vermin, termites, and hopelessness all 
around them. I know that there are more than 165,000 people in my 
district who live at, or below the poverty level and I know, I know Mr. 
Chairman that they need relief; they need help, they need a chance to 
live decently and they need it now.
  I met last week with a group of residents at Boulevard Commons on the 
Southside of Chicago. Boulevard is a project based section 8 program 
where the building is going to be vacated because of need for repair. 
They are frustrated, filled with uncertainty, and not sure about what 
their future will be. I am also working with a group of senior citizens 
on the near Northside of Chicago at Neighborhood Commons where they are 
being told that they no longer have section 8, one can imagine the 
consternation being experienced by this group.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this Amendment to add 120,000 
new section 8 vouchers for low-income families.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.


               Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development may be used 
     to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the 
     settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith & 
     Wesson and the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
     (among other parties).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20, 
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.  Hostettler) and a Member opposed 
each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on April 7 I joined with 62 other Members in a 
bipartisan fashion to write to the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, 
HUD and Independent Agencies and the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal 
Service and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations to 
ask that they prohibit HUD and the BATF from using taxpayers' money to 
implement a settlement agreement entered into between HUD and Smith & 
Wesson.
  As we said in our letter, this settlement agreement sets terms for 
the continued operation of Smith & Wesson that affect many retail 
customers and wholesale distributors. This agreement has been widely 
touted in the media as an agreement for Smith & Wesson to include 
trigger locks with the firearms they sell.
  In reality, however, this agreement is much, much more. This 22-page 
settlement agreement requires Smith & Wesson to implement gun control 
measures, and for Smith & Wesson to require their dealers to implement 
the same gun control measures. Smith & Wesson received in exchange 
HUD's promise not to sue.
  The last time I checked, Mr. Chairman, the Congress is the 
legislative body of the United States government. I suppose former 
Labor Secretary Robert Reich was prophetic in his statement in USA 
Today when he said in

[[Page 11804]]

February of 1999, ``The era of big government may be over, but the era 
of regulation through litigation has just begun.''
  Let me give a few examples of this new regulation, or, more properly 
defined as legislation, contained in this agreement. Keep in mind that 
this body did not agree to these provisions, and in some cases we have 
rejected similar provisions.
  Also keep in mind that in the agreement, Smith & Wesson agrees to 
bind all those dealers who wish to sell Smith & Wesson products to the 
restrictions in the agreement. In other words, Smith & Wesson dealers 
must include the following restrictions on all firearms sales, 
regardless of make. This includes Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Colt, 
and so on.
  In order to continue selling Smith & Wesson products, dealers must 
agree to, one, impose a 14-day waiting period on any purchaser who 
wants to buy more than one firearm; again, all makes. Did Congress 
authorize such a restriction?
  Two, transfer firearms only to individuals who have passed a 
certified safety examination or training course. Once again, all makes 
are covered. Did Congress authorize this restriction?
  Three, the agreement authorizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms to sit on an oversight commission to enforce provisions of the 
coerced agreement. When did Congress authorize the BATF to enforce 
private civil settlement agreements?

                              {time}  1945

  Four, this agreement requires the BATF or an agreed upon proofing 
entity to test firearms. Did we do this in this Congress?
  Five, the agreement mandates that Smith & Wesson commit 2 percent of 
their revenues to develop authorized user technology and within 36 
months, not immediately, 36 months to incorporate this technology in 
all new firearm designs.
  I would say as an aside, with regard to the debate that happened 
concerning my previous amendment, some speaker said that this would 
happen immediately. But, in fact, the agreement says that 36 months 
from now this must happen.
  It appears HUD likes unfunded mandates. Did Congress authorize this 
unfunded mandate? I could go on and on, but time prevents me from doing 
so.
  What is the result of this legislation through litigation tactic 
employed by HUD? Well, a few days ago, Smith & Wesson announced that it 
would shut down two of its plants for a month, leaving 500 workers with 
an unscheduled vacation. But is this not really what HUD wants? We 
should not allow HUD to legislate through litigation.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, to take the power of 
legislation out of HUD's hands, and return it where the Constitution 
requires, the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) 
claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) references the problems that Smith & Wesson is facing as a 
result of, not HUD's activity, but retaliation against an industry 
leader that has been willing to be courageous in being part of a long 
overdue effort to reduce gun violence in America. A part of the 
retaliation is here on the floor today.
  For far too long, we have drug our feet in simple common sense steps 
to make gun safety a part of an overall strategy. Things like trigger 
locks, gun lockboxes, smart weapon technology, making a better gun is a 
prudent thing to do.
  One out of six of our law enforcement officers who die in the line of 
duty are killed with their own service revolver. But it is not good 
enough for the gentleman from Indiana. He wants to try and gut the 
amendment to make real progress towards eliminating this problem. This 
is using the private sector to produce safer weapons, have a code of 
conduct that would help end the scandal that we have in this country, 
that there are more consumer protections for water pistols than for 
real guns, that this Congress has the courage to make an asprin bottle 
difficult for a 2-year-old to open, but this Congress does not have the 
courage to make that hard for that 2-year-old to kill his baby sister.
  This amendment is a disgrace. I have in the foyer of my office a 
picture of Kevin Imel, a young child of a friend of mine who was killed 
by a classmate in an angry moment. It is time for us to put faces on 
the million Americans who have been killed by gun violence since I 
started my public service career. It is time for us to stand up to the 
tyranny of the gun lobby and the people who would pander to them, and 
we can start by rejecting this amendment tonight.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, if there is retaliation that is 
going on as a result of the agreement that Smith & Wesson has taken 
place, if the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) would talk to his 
constituents, he would find out who it is doing that, and that is gun 
owners, gun purchasers, or his constituents who do not want Smith & 
Wesson to bring in more gun control through the back door by 
legislating through the executive branch.
  I would say with regard to the comment of the gentleman from Oregon 
about law enforcement, having the ability to use proper guns, I think 
the gentleman has probably seen the news clip of Governor Glendening's 
attempt to try to get a firearm to become unlocked so that the Governor 
could use it. The Governor was unable to do so. I am afraid it was very 
possible that a police officer would likewise run into similar 
situations on the job.
  Likewise, the gentleman from Oregon said that there is more 
regulation for a squirt gun than for the purchase of a real gun. Well, 
that is intriguing. My 3-year-old recently purchased a squirt gun. I 
should say his mother did. It was not a straw purchase. But his mother 
purchased a squirt gun for him. In doing so, my 3-year-old son did not 
have to fill out paperwork asking if he had committed a crime or if he 
was an alien of the United States of America. So I am not quite sure 
that that is accurate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler). He is highly principled and has the courage to do what I 
think is clearly right by the people of the United States in offering 
this amendment. The points that he has made I agree with completely.
  The Clinton administration and the liberals could not get through the 
Congress what they wanted to, so they tried to do it through a 
settlement using the power of the Government, suing the gun 
manufacturer, and then securing a whole raft of restrictions entered 
into supposedly voluntarily as part of the settlement. It affects the 
gun rights of everyone. I just think it is terribly misplaced.
  I hope we approve the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana that 
will, in essence, gut the settlement, because it deserves to be set 
aside. If we are going to enact legislation or policies of this type, 
then bring them here to the Congress of the United States. Let us 
debate them and let the people's Representatives make the decision 
about this rather than simply having this done off to the side in the 
secrecy of settlement agreements that are entered into.
  The thing that bothers me the most, though, Mr. Chairman, is this 
constant focus of liberals on the gun, the instrumentality, rather than 
on the people who are misusing the instrumentality. I mean, we have 
seen this time and

[[Page 11805]]

time and time again. It is just a diversionary tactic because it is 
covering up the fact that, under the Clinton administration, Federal 
prosecution of gun crimes has dropped precipitously.
  When we had a great program that we knew worked, like Project Exile 
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we tried to expand that to the 
rest of the country, the administration would not do it. Only this year 
under extreme pressure did they finally have to relent and start that 
program in other parts of the country where we have seen dramatic 
reductions in gun violence because the Federal Government, through the 
U.S. attorney in cooperation with local law enforcement, is prosecuting 
vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law the misuse of a 
firearm.
  That is the direction we ought to be heading in, punishing the misuse 
of the firearm, not trying to achieve through stealth, in my judgment, 
what cannot be done by getting a majority of the House and Senate to go 
along with these very same policies when they are put to a vote here.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has a great amendment. I 
hope people support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to be a little extreme to suggest that the 
Clinton administration that spear-headed the passage of the Brady bill 
that has caused thousands of criminals not to have guns in their hands 
and the passage of the ban on assault weapons.
  But I rise in opposition to this amendment, because I do not believe 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) understands the premise of 
what he intends to do. The Housing and Urban Development had every 
right to make a freestanding contract with Smith & Wesson, and that is 
what they did.
  The retaliation comes from the underlying advocacy and opposition to 
the agreement by the National Rifle Association. But to encourage a gun 
manufacturer to have trigger locks and to be able to adhere to a code 
of conduct that would help close gun show loopholes so that children 6 
years old do not kill children and that a distraught young man does not 
kill his teacher, I think HUD should be applauded. Smith & Wesson 
should be applauded.
  This amendment should be voted down. We should go on with the 
business of saving lives in America.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I respond to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) in her assertion that I do not understand what I am doing. I think 
I understand what I am doing perfectly well, and that is reasserting 
the Congress' authority under article I, section 1 of the Constitution; 
and that simply states that all legislative powers shall be vested in a 
Congress.
  When HUD entered into the settlement agreement with Smith & Wesson, 
creating all these gun control measures that not only affect Smith & 
Wesson's relationship to its dealers and to its customers, but the 
relationship of all gun manufacturers, all retailers, all customers in 
every transaction, that it takes place in an authorized dealer of Smith 
& Wesson, they did take a back door to the legislative process.
  It is my desire, through this amendment, to once again reassert the 
legislative prerogative of this body; and that is to have the people's 
House determine what the legislation should be, what the direction of 
course should be in this policy-making arena, and not to allow 
unelected bureaucrats to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very much for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is most unfortunate and unwise to sit here on the 
floor and hear all of the rhetoric from the proponents of this 
amendment try to align its substance as being anti-Clinton and anti-
liberals. When children pick up guns, they are not political. They do 
not know who manufactures a gun. They do not know whether or not it has 
a trigger lock on it. They just know they pull the trigger.
  I think it is most unfortunate, given the outbreak of violence around 
this country where innocent people have died at the hands of an 
innocent person until they pull the trigger, it would be most 
unfortunate if we supported this amendment.
  I want to applaud Smith & Wesson, even though I am not a gun owner 
and a gun user, for exerting corporate responsibility. That is what it 
is.
  If my colleagues adopt the Hostettler amendment, with all deference 
to the gentleman from Indiana, if my colleagues adopt his amendment, 
however, it would have a chilling effect on other companies who are 
willing to take steps in the right direction in promoting gun safety.
  We talk about the bureaucracy in the Clinton administration and Big 
Brother government; but as I recall, even before I got here, we talked 
a lot about public safety, air bags in automobiles, safety belts in 
cars, to keep people from dying accidently.
  We talk about imposing training on people when people have to be 
trained to even get their license to drive an automobile, which if used 
recklessly and wantonly, will kill people.
  We require airline pilots who take the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) and I back and forth to Indiana on a weekly basis, to have 
a certain amount of training. I would hate for us to get on an airline 
with an untrained pilot. We both would be in trouble regardless whether 
we are Democrat or Republican or conservative or liberal.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a defeat, respectfully, of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support today of the 
Hostettler amendments, both this one and the one that we debated 
earlier.
  I want to just stop for a minute and take a look at our country. 
Every single day, there are men and women in our country that get up, 
most of the time they are in uniform, fire fighters, police officers, 
men and women in the military, and they get up, they button their 
uniform on; and when they do that, they are saying to us, today I will 
die if I need to to protect your freedom.
  Well, we owe those people something. If the Communities for Safer 
Guns Coalition gets everything that they want, then what they are doing 
is they are taking the maximum security that those people could have 
away from them.
  We would never in this body attempt to regulate the kind of ropes 
that fire fighters might be able to use while they do their job to try 
to save their life. We would never ask for lower quality guns and 
ammunition or tanks for our military people just because it was the 
political action of the day or the political discussion of the day.
  So why should we, why should we take the right of chiefs of police in 
local communities away from them to get the equipment that they think 
gives their force the greatest possibility of survival, God forbid they 
should come into a situation where they needed to use that equipment, 
where they needed to use those weapons.

                              {time}  2000

  That is unthinkable. And that is really what the Communities for 
Safer Guns Coalition is about. It is about diminishing the safety of 
those people who say they will die for us if they have to do that. It 
is not about saving lives.
  Let me talk about the other issue, of whether or not we should be 
spending

[[Page 11806]]

Federal funds to implement and enforce the agreement with Smith & 
Wesson. As my colleagues know, I represent the great State of Wyoming. 
I am a gun owner. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the 
State of Wyoming, and I do. I am trained in the use of this gun. I am 
trained in the use of rifles. My husband and I together trained our 
children. We took them hunting. We took them target practicing. We 
taught them to respect what a gun is and to respect the way to handle 
it. And we also taught them to respect the law and that if they did not 
respect the law and obey the law, there would be consequences to pay.
  Well, what this administration needs to do with their time and with 
their money is to enforce the laws that we have and make sure that 
people who break the law using guns suffer the consequences. President 
Clinton brags that about 540,000 felons who tried to purchase weapons 
illegally were prevented from doing so under the Brady bill. Do my 
colleagues know how many of those people were prosecuted? Fewer than 
200.
  I would say that if the President really wants to stop death and 
violence, that he should see to it that we start punishing criminals, 
locking them up, and letting law-abiding citizens own their guns, be 
responsible, and protect themselves.
  In Australia, just lately, not too long ago, the government took the 
guns away from all the citizens. The crime rate skyrocketed because 
only the criminals have guns. I want to have a gun, to be able to 
defend myself or defend my family. But most of all I want to defend the 
Constitution of the United States of America. I want to defend not just 
the second amendment but all of them, and I ask my colleagues to vote 
in favor of the Hostettler amendment so that we can do that.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. First of all, in response to my friend from 
Wyoming, the number of arrests and prosecutions are up significantly 
since 1992. They are obviously not adequate enough, but if we had more 
BATF enforcement officers, that would help that situation.
  Certainly public safety officers are not endangered when they can 
obtain guns, when they are licensed, when they are trained. And I would 
think many of them would like to have a child safety lock on their gun 
when it is at home and their kids might have access to it.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I want to try to paraphrase from Dante's Inferno. 
He talks about the fact that the lowest level and the depths of hell is 
reserved for those who, knowing the difference between good and evil, 
choose not to become involved, thereby letting evil prevail. In fact, 
Rabbi Saperstein, in his letter to all of us, urging rejection of the 
Hostettler amendment, quotes Leviticus and Jewish tradition that we 
should not sit idly by the blood of our neighbors.
  How can we not get involved when more than a dozen kids a day are 
dying of firearms. Maybe we do not believe that. Maybe we do not care, 
because most of those deaths are in urban minority low-income 
communities. When it happens in a white suburban middle-class community 
we read about it at least. Or maybe we do not even read about it; maybe 
we do not care about it. But the fact is we ought to do something about 
it. It is wrong. These children are losing their lives because guns are 
all over the place. They are pervasive in our society, and that is 
wrong.
  When 411 communities try to get together to do something about it, to 
try to protect the kids in their communities, what do we do? We try to 
stop them. We do not let them get away with that interfering. Let us 
see what constructive alternatives our colleagues have, because what we 
are doing today is not enough: 300,000 deaths, a dozen kids a day. Show 
us what those on the other side of the aisle would do about it, more 
than rhetoric.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would simply call to point that this is a very passionate debate 
that has taken place tonight, and that is exactly what the framers of 
the Constitution intended to happen. They intended to have passionate 
debate on issues relating to things as important not only as the second 
amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be 
infringed, but as well the ability for the legislative branch to 
maintain its prerogative to do just that, and that is to legislate.
  What this amendment will do is simply stop the legislative activity 
on the part of the administration in this one small particular area so 
that the gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from New York, 
everyone else involved in this debate can have that passionate debate; 
and they can have that passionate debate based on the understanding of 
the Constitution, public safety, and all other things, separation of 
powers, Federalism and all that, according to what the legislation 
should be and what their elected representatives should do.
  These people in HUD, the BATF, they are there to faithfully execute 
the laws of the United States. They are not there to faithfully create 
the laws of the United States. That is what they did in this agreement.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply ask for Congress to once again assert our 
legislative prerogative. Defund this agreement. And if the other side 
wants to create another debate about gun control, they can do that. But 
that should happen in the halls of this building, the Congress, and not 
behind closed doors in the bureaucracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take my time, this 1 
minute, to commend the gentlewoman from New York for her extraordinary 
leadership and her extraordinary courage. She has become the 
personification in this country of gun safety, and to the mothers and 
families of America she is a leader and a source of hope and 
inspiration.
  It seems the least we can do here, out of respect for the concerns 
that parents in America have about gun safety, is to defeat the 
Hostettler amendment. This amendment, and the one that preceded it 
earlier regarding the coalition, are really unnecessary and they fly in 
the face of incremental and reasonable and common sense attempts to 
protect our children from guns.
  This code of conduct really should be serving as a model; and, 
instead, this House of Representatives is considering eliminating it, 
taking a step backward. Who can oppose the idea of HUD engaging in an 
agreement for a code of conduct for gun safety?
  HUD should be commended, the gentlewoman from New York should be 
commended, and we should defeat the Hostettler amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time and for her extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. Why are we attacking companies 
trying to do the right thing? This amendment would defund the 
settlement reached between Smith & Wesson and HUD to reduce handgun 
violence. Smith & Wesson agreed to develop safer handguns, install 
child safety locks, and to sell only to vendors who require background 
checks. All reasonable, common sense gun safety actions.
  We have, Mr. Chairman, over 13 young people dying each day due to gun 
violence. We have children killing children. I guess protecting 
children is just too much to ask. This amendment prevents Smith & 
Wesson and other responsible companies from working to make our 
communities safer. This amendment will do nothing but appease the NRA 
and some members of the gun industry.
  I urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

[[Page 11807]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the Hostettler amendment is another 
example of how far out of step the Republican leadership is with the 
American people. They refuse to move ahead with gun safety legislation, 
and now they have gone out of their way to punish Smith & Wesson simply 
because Smith & Wesson wants to include a child safety lock with their 
handgun. It is mind-boggling.
  Further, they would gut the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition. 
This is 411 cities and towns across the country who have agreed to 
purchase handguns for their police officers from gun makers that agree 
to include child safety locks with the guns they sell and to keep a 
close eye on the gun dealers that sell to criminals.
  Let me tell my colleagues that if they vote for this amendment, if 
they support it, they turn their backs on the values of this country 
and on the American people. This is the people's House. Overwhelmingly 
this country wants to see gun safety legislation. And what is more, 
those who vote for this amendment will be living up to the old saying 
that ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' They will be telling people that 
they not only oppose mandatory child safety locks but they are going to 
punish companies who voluntarily include child safety locks with their 
guns.
  What is next? Shall we punish car manufacturers who make safe cars, 
pharmaceutical companies that put child safety locks on aspirin 
bottles? Smith & Wesson, my colleagues, have done the right thing. They 
have agreed to include a child safety lock with the guns they sell. 
They have agreed to help ensure that dealers who sell their guns will 
only sell to law-abiding citizens. We should be thanking them. Instead, 
the gun lobby and the Republican leadership of this House want to 
prevent local efforts to make our communities, our neighborhoods safer, 
and to punish the gun makers that act responsibly.
  This is so wrong, it is unbelievable. We should reject this kind of 
revenge by legislation. Let us defeat the Hostettler amendment tonight.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are having this debate on this bill, 
and I would like to clarify a couple of points. First of all, our staff 
has checked and, according to HUD's records and their budget office, 
there are no funds being spent to implement this agreement. The 
administration has not requested funds for this purpose, and the bill 
does not include those funds. Consequently, the amendment really has no 
practical impact on HUD and is, therefore, unnecessary.
  The problem is, for us, with this bill, it creates real difficulties. 
It creates a diversion away from the real issues of the bill. Much like 
the Kyoto debate on report language, we are trying to anticipate what 
the administration might do when no funds are actually being expended.
  So I would urge that Members vote against this amendment. It really 
is not, in my mind, germane to this bill; and for that reason, I would 
urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously, I stand against this amendment for many 
reasons. Unfortunately, we have heard an awful lot, in my opinion, on 
not understanding exactly what the agreement was. We have heard Members 
talking about gun control. This is not gun control. It is not even near 
gun control. What we are talking about is child safety, safety and 
guns. And our police officers across this Nation certainly have the 
opportunity to either reject or not accept this agreement when they buy 
their guns.
  Let me say something to my colleagues. Across this Nation all of our 
communities, all of our cities are trying to figure out how to reduce 
gun violence in this country. Secretary Cuomo, with HUD, has come up 
with an agreement with Smith & Wesson, which has taken on the 
responsibility of trying to make safer guns. Not eliminate guns, make 
safer guns. Safer guns for our police officers and certainly, 
hopefully, safer guns for our citizens.

                              {time}  2015

  Yes, they want background checks. Well, I think almost everybody 
should agree that we do not want to sell guns to criminals, so people 
should go for background checks. Smith & Wesson has agreed to do this. 
Guns cannot be marketed to children.
  Wow, that is some sort of gun control, is it not? Guns cannot be 
marketed to children. The smart guns again.
  We talk about using taxpayers' money. My colleague from New York (Mr. 
Walsh), the chairman, has said no monies have been appropriated for 
this. But let me tell my colleagues what we spend on health care in 
this country every single year because of gun injuries in this country. 
It is over $2 billion a year.
  If our communities and certainly the housing that we are putting 
people in can be made safer, that is what we should be doing. This is 
not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. As far as I am 
concerned, this is part of a health care issue. Smith & Wesson, 
certainly Secretary Cuomo of HUD, have tried to do something to try to 
make this country safer. I applaud him for this.
  I wish we could get past this thing of gun control. There is not one 
person, not one person, in this Congress that is trying to take away 
the right of someone owning a gun. That is something everyone should 
start to remember. I am tired of hearing that. I will never try to take 
away the right of someone owning a gun. That is not what I am here for. 
But I am certainly trying to keep health care costs down. I am 
certainly trying to save lives.
  I think that Smith & Wesson has done the right job, and I say let us 
support them for a change.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey); amendment No. 35, as modified, offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey); the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins); amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler); amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler); amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by the voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page 11808]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 277, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 303]

                               AYES--145

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Camp
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Larson
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Terry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand

                               NOES--277

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Kuykendall
     McCollum
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Tauscher
     Thornberry
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2040

  Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. CLAYTON, Messrs. REGULA, BROWN 
of Ohio, WATKINS, DIXON, MORAN of Virginia, VISCLOSKY, RAHALL, and 
RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. WELLER, HYDE, HULSHOF, COSTELLO, LEVIN, CRANE, Ms. KAPTUR, 
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. ENGLISH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, the Chair announces 
that it will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


          Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Hinchey, As Modified

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), 
as modified, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 216, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)

[[Page 11809]]


     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--216

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Kuykendall
     McCollum
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2048

  Mr. PEASE and Mr. BARR of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 199, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               AYES--225

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Cook
     DeLay
     Kuykendall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2056

  Messrs. WALSH, DEUTSCH, WELLER and CALVERT changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. OSE, WELDON of Pennsylvania, SKELTON, CLYBURN and STUPAK 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page 11810]]

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 207, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Kuykendall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2104

  Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Texas and Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138, 
noes 286, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--138

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Woolsey

                               NOES--286

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt

[[Page 11811]]


     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Horn
     Kuykendall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2111

  Mr. GEJDENSON and Mr. KLINK changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 219, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--206

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--219

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

[[Page 11812]]



                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Kuykendall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2118

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans 
     Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my grave concern with the 
bill before us today. This bill critically underfunds important 
national priorities that are too numerous to mention.
  Many members of this House have expressed their concern about the 
federal government's chronic failure to meet its commitment to special 
needs kids. Yet, this bill provides just $6.6 billion in funding for 
special education, $514 million over last year's funding but far short 
of the $16 billion-plus we need to fulfill this longstanding commitment 
to our most vulnerable children.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a school in my district where exposed wires 
dangle from the ceiling, and rainwater seeps over those wires, but this 
bill provides no funds to repair collapsing schools. Never mind that 
more than 200 of my colleagues have heeded the call of their school 
districts, who are begging for assistance repairing schools.
  53.2 million kids--a national enrollment record--started school in 
1999 and 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the coming years to 
teach them what they need to know. The teacher shortage is an imminent 
national crisis, yet this bill includes no funds to continue the class 
size reduction initiative that is putting 100,000 new teachers in our 
schools.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that quality early childhood programs for low-
income children can increase the likelihood that children will be 
literate, employed, and educated, and less likely to be school 
dropouts, dependent on welfare, or arrested for criminal activity. This 
bill, however, cuts the President's request for Head Start by $600 
million, which denies 53,000 low-income children the opportunity to 
benefit from this comprehensive child development program.
  Tragically, our country has become desensitized to school violence 
accustomed to reports of shootings in schools. School shootings are no 
longer front page news! Yet, this bill eliminates assistance for 
elementary school counselors that serve more than 100,000 children in 
60 high-need school districts that could intervene and identify 
troubled kids before they harm themselves, their classmates or their 
teachers.
  Earlier this week, I supported a bill to relieve the estate tax with 
great reservation I have long been a supporter of responsible estate 
tax relief that maintains our national commitments--paying down the 
national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and supporting 
important domestic priorities such as the ones I have listed here. The 
leadership of this House, however, gave us one vehicle for estate tax 
relief, and I supported it with the hope that the Senate and the 
conference committee will craft a fiscally responsible compromise.
  Today, however, I am faced with this bill that turns its back on our 
nation's number one priority--our kids. The leadership of this House 
expects a veto of this irresponsible bill. I am voting against this 
bill today and I ask my colleagues to do the same. We then can return 
to the drawing board and craft a fiscally responsible bill that 
reflects our priorities as a nation.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the 
increase in funding included in this measure for many veteran's 
programs. One of my most important duties as a Member of Congress, and 
one of which I am most proud, is to honor the men and women who have 
served our Nation in uniform. I remain committed to the interests of 
our Nation's veterans and their families. I believe that Congress bears 
a special responsibility to protect those programs which serve our 
veterans' health and welfare. Our veterans have given so much to our 
Nation; we can only hope to give them as much in return.
  I am pleased, therefore, that this measure includes an increase for 
veterans' medical care, service-connected compensation benefits and 
pensions, and readjustment benefits. While there are some shortcomings 
in the allocations for other veterans' programs, I am confident that my 
colleagues will address these provisions in conference committee. As 
the appropriations process moves forward, I will continue to fight for 
healthy funding levels for all veterans programs.
  Unfortunately, while the bill provides important increases in funding 
for veterans' programs, it falls far short in meeting one of our most 
basic needs--housing. The bill before us today is $2.5 billion less 
than the Administration's request for housing and other community 
development programs. This is unacceptable.
  I would like to take a moment to focus on funding for the Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG). As many of my colleagues can recall, 
CDBG funds were used to assist the city of Grand Forks in rebuilding 
after the devastating flood in 1997. The funds provided the city with 
needed flexibility to address both urgent and long-term needs. The 
successful recovery of Grand Forks was due in large part to the 
assistance from HUD. Under this bill, however, funding for CDBG is cut 
by $295 million from last year's funding level.
  Additionally, the bill does not provide any funding for Round II 
Empowerment Zones. In my State of North Dakota, the Griggs/Steele 
Empowerment Zone was designated as such in 1999. At that time, a 
commitment was made by the Federal Government to assist this area and 
others in creating jobs and economic opportunity. That commitment, 
however, goes unfulfilled in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time of unprecedented economic prosperity, we 
should not be turning our backs on those who need help the most, the 
poor and homeless, our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. While I stand 
in strong support of our Nation's veterans, as a result of these cuts 
in the housing program, I will be voting against this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of the health 
and safety of our children, our families and our communities. I rise 
today to call for increased funding for our environment.
  H.R. 4635 funds the Environmental Protection Agency at $199 million 
or nearly ten percent below the Administration's request for basic 
environmental and public health protection. These programs are 
considered the backbone of the Agency's work.
  A cut of this magnitude would seriously affect EPA's ability to 
provide American communities with cleaner water, cleaner air, and an 
improved quality of life.
  Toxic air emissions (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde) from industrial 
plants, cars and trucks will not be reduced. This will expose 
approximately 80% of the American people to greater risks of developing 
cancer and other serious health problems (birth defects, reproductive 
disorders, and damage to the nervous system).
  By delaying implementation of new standards for high-risk chemicals 
such as arsenic, radon, and radionuclides, public health and safety 
will be jeopardized for 240 million Americans who get their drinking 
water from public water systems.
  Fish kills and hazardous algal blooms in the Nation's rivers, lakes, 
and estuaries will increase as our ability to develop national criteria 
to control excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) will be 
significantly delayed.
  The reduction in EPA's funding will hinder successful voluntary 
partnerships with private companies to reduce emissions of greenhouse 
gases and other air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides 
(NOX).
  As a result of this cut, over the next decade 335 million tons of 
greenhouse gas pollution will unnecessarily be emitted into the 
atmosphere and 850 thousand tons of nitrogen oxide will be emitted into 
the atmosphere.
  Finally, as we enter the summer, millions of American's visiting 
beaches will be at increased risk because there will be significant 
delays in the Agency's ability to monitor and collect adequate 
information about beach contamination.
  I urge my colleagues to protect their communities and reject this 
anti-environment bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans Affairs, Housing 
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill 
simply does not do enough. The Majority has delivered a bill that 
shortchanges valuable programs. Not only is the core bill itself 
underfunded, but today's amendment process has forced Members to vote 
on amendments that simply shift already-limited resources from one 
important program to another. This ``robbing Peter to pay Paul'' 
approach doesn't satisfy the real needs of these programs or the needs 
of the citizens of this country.
  This bill does not make adequate strides to ensure that affordable 
housing can be a reality in our country and the dream of first-time 
homeownership is attainable. This bill fails to fund the 
Administration's request for 120,000 incremental rental assistance 
vouchers, including 10,000 vouchers for housing production of the first 
new affordable housing for families since 1996.
  The bill slashes HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
program by $395

[[Page 11813]]

million from the President's request. This cut in funding restricts 
communities' abilities to redevelop downtown areas, open after-school 
recreation programs, and shelter the homeless.
  In recent weeks, President Clinton and Speaker Hastert announced that 
they had reached a bipartisan agreement on the New Markets and 
Community Renewal legislative initiative. This agreement would increase 
funding for ``brownfields'' redevelopment and for housing and economic 
development in rural communities, key provisions of the New Markets 
Initiative. But the bill before us today doesn't adhere to the spirit 
or the letter of this agreement. I am troubled by the Republican 
Majority's decision to cut many of the elements of this rare bipartisan 
agreement reached by the President and the Speaker.
  The bill falls also far short of providing the level of funding 
needed for the Environmental Protection Agency's basic environmental, 
public health, and other programs. I am particularly concerned about 
the bill's cuts to EPA's Climate Change Technology Initiative, which is 
made up of voluntary programs designed to mitigate global climate 
change, improve energy efficiency, reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil, and save consumers money. In addition, the bill still includes 
language that unduly limits EPA's activities relative to climate 
change.
  In the realm of science, this bill will jeopardize our investment in 
the future by cutting NSF funding for science and engineering research 
and education by over $500 million, or 11% below the requested level. 
This reduction will seriously undermine priority investments in 
cutting-edge research, and eliminate funding for almost 18,000 
researchers and science and mathematics educators--so many of whom live 
and work in my district in Colorado.
  The bill before us also leaves NASA programs $322 million below the 
budget request. It eliminates almost all of the funding for the Small 
Aircraft Transportation System and the Aviation Capacity programs, both 
of which are intended to make use of NASA's technological capabilities 
to reduce air traffic congestion. It eliminates all of the funding for 
NASA's Space Launch Initiative, a program to help maintain American 
leadership in space transportation. And it eliminates all the money for 
NASA's effort to better forecast ``solar storms'' that, if undetected, 
can damage the nation's communications and national security 
satellites. This ``Living with a Star'' program is especially important 
to the University of Colorado at Boulder and federal laboratories in my 
district.
  Investing in NASA is a wise decision. The advancement of science and 
space should concern us all. Yet this bill doesn't fund science and 
space programs at levels that would indicate this concern. On the 
countrary--many Members were forced to seek offsets in NASA programs in 
order to increase funding for other worthwhile programs. For example, 
cutting funds for the International Space Station--a traditional target 
for offsets--makes even less sense this year, as we're finally in a 
position to reap the return on our past investments in that program. 
NASA estimates that the U.S. portion of the Space Station development 
program is over 90 percent complete. The first segments of the Space 
Station are already in orbit and operational, and additional elements 
of the Space Station are awaiting launch from Cape Kennedy. Under the 
current schedule, crews will start the permanent occupation of the 
Space Station this fall, and the U.S. Laboratory will be fully 
functional early next year.
  Members who would cut Space Station funding argue that this funding 
should be redirected to all of the other underfunded accounts in this 
bill. Their argument is borne out of the justifiable frustration with 
the Majority's Budget Resolution, which set unrealistic--and ultimately 
untenable--caps on the various appropriations accounts. The solution is 
not to ask Members to make false choices among programs--it is to seek 
to increase the overall allocation for the VA-HUD-Independent agencies 
subcommittee so that all of the worthwhile activities can be funded at 
reasonable levels.
  Mr. Chairman, the overall funding shortfall is the key problem with 
this bill, and I cannot support it in its current form.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the VA/HUD 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001.
  The bill cuts the President's proposed $675 million increase in the 
NSF budget by $508 million. This will jeopardize the Nation's 
investment in the future. The bill undermines priority investments in 
advanced technologies, including information technology, nanotechnology 
and geosciences.
  Earlier this year, the House passed a bi-partisan bill, H.R. 2086, 
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, 
which calls for major increases in Information Technology research and 
development, with a large portion of the increase designated to the 
NSF. This bill will significantly reduce funding for the Information 
Technology R&D program.
  Approximately 81 percent ($2,149.9 million) of NSF's FY 1999 funding 
in research and development budget was awarded to U.S. colleges and 
universities. Many of the higher education institutions in my District 
such as Portland State University, Oregon Graduate Institute, and 
Oregon Health Sciences University, rely on these grants for cutting 
edge research. For instance, these three institutions have joined with 
the University of Washington in receiving NSF funding to create a high-
speed metropolitan network to connect the universities for 
collaborative medical science, engineering and technology research.
  I represent the Silicon Forest. As I meet with high-tech employers 
and workers in my district, I hear concerns that there aren't enough 
skilled workers. Employers look to the H-1B visa program as an 
important safety valve to hire trained high-tech workers. However, the 
H-1B visa program is capped, and these caps are reached very quickly--
it is estimated that the total in FY 2000 (115,000) will be reached in 
March of this year. Employers are now urging Congress to raise the visa 
cap.
  We need to do much more than just raise the visa cap on a temporary 
emergency basis each year. We need to address the issue of training 
American students. The bill we are considering today does not help to 
achieve this goal. It slows down our efforts to train the next-
generation of scientists and engineers, and prepare more Americans for 
high-tech, high-wage jobs. The cuts in the bill include a 21 percent or 
over $30 million below the request for undergraduate education--
including nearly 50 percent cut in requested funding for the National 
Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library.
  We must do more for the future of science and our future scientists, 
because in doing so, we provide for the future of America.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the budgetary constraints under 
which Chairman Walsh is working, and commend him for doing an admirable 
job under difficult circumstances. I am, however, deeply concerned 
about several programs reduced or eliminated in this bill.
  This legislation fails to fund EPA's Office of Long Island Sound 
Programs. On May 9, the House voted 391 to 29 to reauthorize the 
program at an $80 million level.
  Over the past decade, the Long Island Sound Office has been an 
essential partner with Connecticut and New York. Together we have made 
enormous progress in the cleanup of Long Island Sound. But, we still 
have much work to do and many challenges to face. It is critical the 
Long Island Sound Office funding be restored and increased 
significantly so we may succeed in cleaning up, preserving and 
protecting Long Island Sound for future generations.
  This bill also eliminates additional Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) funding for disaster relief--providing only $300 million, 
a decrease of $2.4 billion from FY 00.
  It is fiscally irresponsible for this House to neglect to appropriate 
money for disaster relief. Natural disasters cannot be prevented, and 
the federal government has a responsibility to assist communities 
respond to emergencies. Relying on emergency spending appropriations 
bills to respond to inevitable disasters is simply not good budgeting.
  It is my hope the Conference Committee will work to restore FEMA 
funds and permit the agency to adequately prepare for natural disasters 
in a timely manner and fulfill its responsibility to those whose lives 
are affected.
  I plan to vote for final passage of this legislation because I want 
to keep the process moving forward, but I would like to make clear I 
will not vote for a Conference Report that fails to restore the Office 
of Long Island Sound Programs.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the HUD/VA 
appropriations bill. I am opposed to cuts in the HUD budget, especially 
with regard to the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is 
cut by about $300 million from last year's level, and the HOME 
investment program.
  The Community Development Fund provides funding to state and local 
governments, and to other entities that carry out community and 
economic development activities. The HOME investment partnerships 
program provides grants to states and units of local government through 
formula allocation for the purpose of expanding the supply of 
affordable housing. As a former Montgomery County Commissioner, I know 
how heavily local communities rely on these funds.
  These cuts block efforts by our communities to create desperately 
needed affordable housing and jobs and curtail efforts to expand

[[Page 11814]]

home ownership and revitalize our poorest communities. These programs 
are a key incentive to development in my community in Montgomery 
County, Pennsylvania. According to local officials who have contacted 
me about these critical programs, these reductions mean that much 
needed development work may be delayed or canceled.
  Other objectionable provisions in this bill include the anti-
environmental riders, no new funding for additional Section 8 vouchers, 
and no funding for the President's National Service program. Overall 
spending for the bill is more than $2 billion below the President's 
request.
  I will vote against this legislation in the hope that the conference 
committee will improve on the work of the House.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the United States is facing an 
affordable housing crisis. While the American dream has always included 
homeownership, the price of the average home has surpassed the 
financial reach of many Americans, with housing values even outpacing 
the national inflation rate. This VA-HUD bill disregards the current 
state of critical housing needs that our nation is experiencing.
  Despite an unprecedented era of national economic prosperity, the gap 
between available, affordable housing and accessibility for both 
homeowners and renters is widening. Families who have worst-case 
housing needs as defined by HUD are those who receive no government 
housing assistance, have incomes less than 50 percent of local area 
family income, and pay more than half their income for rent or mortgage 
and utilities. Based on this criteria, the number of families faced 
with worst-case housing needs has reached an all-time high of 5.4 
million families, an increase of 12 percent since 1991. This 
constitutes a staggering figure--it means that one out of every seven 
American families is experiencing a critical housing situation.
  In the past, the United States maintained a housing surplus. In 1970, 
a market of 6.5 million low-cost rental units was available for 6.2 
million low-income renters. By 1995, the surplus disappeared and 10.5 
million low-income renters had to vie for 6.1 million available low-
cost rental units on the market.
  This housing crisis is not just an inner-city problem. In the suburbs 
throughout the last decade, we saw a decline in the number of units 
affordable to low-income families. Today, over one-third of households 
facing worst-case needs are in the suburbs.
  Affordable housing is an essential component of a livable community. 
Communities that support residents of varying income levels and choices 
for housing are sustainable. These communities support a diverse body 
of workers, both service-oriented and professional, that responds to 
the employment needs of the local economy.
  This bill before us cuts $303,000 funding for my district from the 
Administration's request level. The reductions are in a number of HUD 
programs--among them Community Development Block Grants, Homeless 
Assistance, public housing operating subsidies, and Housing 
Opportunities for People with AIDS.
  Last year, the House passed H.R. 202, ``Preserving Affordable Housing 
for Seniors in the 21st Century'' by a margin of 405-5. It included 
provisions that would have meant additional funding for service 
coordinators, assisted living, congregate housing services, and capital 
improvements. No funding for this legislation was included in this 
appropriations bill. This means the needs will go unmet for services 
that will enable many of our seniors to age in place rather than face 
homelessness or premature institutionalization. And the Housing 
Authority of Portland tells me that without this funding, it will find 
it extremely difficult to meet its needs for basic repairs such as 
roofs, sprinklers and heating and cooling systems.
  Section 8 is the federal government's primary mechanism for meeting 
the housing needs of low-income households. One strength of this 
program is that it allows the recipient a choice of which community in 
which to live. This approach is different from public housing in that 
it disperses recipients into economically diverse communities and 
avoids the undesirable social effects of clustering of low-income 
residents. Funding for the Section 8 program needs to be strengthened. 
Not a single additional person is given Section 8 assistance with this 
bill; the ``increases'' proponents claim are merely budget gimmicks.
  The budget for low-income affordable housing programs, particularly 
Section 8 vouchers and Public Housing, needs to be increased. Housing 
authority waiting lists are longer than at any time in the past. 
Approximately 25,000 households in Oregon are waiting for housing 
assistance. These people are elderly, disabled, or single parents with 
children.
  So I ask my colleagues to consider these items as we each return 
tonight to the comfort of our homes. Think of the Americans who are 
honest and hard-working, yet still are having difficulty providing 
adequate shelter for their families. Help make the American dream 
obtainable for them. We need to increase funding for federal housing 
programs.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  There being no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 525, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote on final passage of House Joint Resolution 90 immediately 
hereafter will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 169, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               YEAS--256

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo

[[Page 11815]]


     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--169

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Cook
     DeLay
     Kuykendall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Vento
     Wynn

                              {time}  2136

  Mr. INSLEE and Mr. DOOLEY of California changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________