Summary:
All articles in House section
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(House of Representatives - July 17, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages H5743-H5821]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to House Resolution 501
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4194.
{time} 0919
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4194) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for
[[Page H5744]]
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to at the outset
mention to my colleagues that beyond the substance of this bill, which
is considerable, during the day today I expect that we will have a good
deal of discussion of the reality that there is another piece of
substance that indeed deserves our recognition, for as many people
know, and I would like the Members who are on their way over time here
today to know, that this is the last bill that I will have the
privilege of working with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stokes) on, on the floor. I think everybody knows of our friendship,
and I think as this debate goes forward, people will be reminded of the
incredible contribution that the gentleman has made, not just to this
legislation, not just to our committee, but to the House as a whole.
Before we perhaps discuss that in a little different environment than
the one we have on the floor presently, I would like to spend a few
moments with a brief overview of the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD bill.
Due to the delayed budget process and upcoming election cycle, we
find ourselves working under a very compressed schedule. This is
evidenced by the fact that our Senate VA-HUD counterparts have already
moved their bill through the full committee, and last evening they
completed their debate on the bill. This morning they will begin simply
the voting process. So they really are ahead of us in that cycle, a
most unusual circumstance.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I are hopeful that we can
have a conference report completed before the August recess. That is a
goal that may be a bit optimistic, but we both are committed to pushing
the process forward and getting a bill that can be signed to the
President's desk.
The bill before us today is within our allocation in both budget
authority and outlays. Our proposal provides $70.894 billion, including
$10.2 billion for Section 8 rental assistance. Hidden gimmicks in the
President's request, which includes items like receipts from the
tobacco settlement, which of course is a fiction, those items make our
total $70,894 billion in discretionary spending. They appear to be over
the budget request. We are, in fact, if we take out those gimmicks,
some $2 billion in real spending below the administration's request.
The VA-HUD subcommittee, by cutting over $25 billion over the last
several years, has demonstrated that we can, in a bipartisan way,
reduce the rate of growth of government without putting those who rely
upon these programs for assistance, including veterans and residents of
public housing, for example, without putting those citizens in
jeopardy.
With regard to veterans' programs, this bill provides $17.057 billion
for veterans' medical care, an increase of $29 million over the
administration's request. VA medical research is funded at $320
million, an increase of $20 million over the President's request, and
$48 million over last year's bill.
Within HUD's budget, we have funded the Section 8 rental assistance
program at $10.2 billion. The CDBG program and drug elimination grant
programs have been funded at the budget request of $4.725 billion, and
$290 million respectively.
We have also provided $100 million in vouchers designed to implement
welfare reform. The section 202 elderly housing program has been funded
at $645 million, $109 million over the President's request.
Section 811 disabled housing program has been funded at $194 million,
which is an increase of $20 million over the request. Accounts within
HUD which have demonstrated positive results have been increased. Those
that either are without measurable results, or which have not worked
well at all, have been treated differently under this measure.
With regard to the Environmental Protection Agency, we have slightly
increased the Agency's budget over the current fiscal year to $7.422
billion. This included level funding of $1.5 billion for the Superfund,
a program that has been described as being broken by the administrator.
We have been waiting now for several years to receive that promised fix
for the Superfund program. We have also funded the President's request
for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, SRF, at $775 million, a
$50 million increase over fiscal year 1998, and a Clean Water SRF at
$1.250 billion, an increase of $175 million over the President's
request. Finally, we have fully funded the President's clean water
action plan.
Moving to the National Science Foundation, this bill has increased
funding over last year's level for research by $269 million, for major
equipment, by $16 million and educational programs by $10 million. As a
result of the Frelinghuysen-Neumann amendment, which was adopted in the
full committee, the funding for important research programs has been
increased by approximately 10 percent over the current fiscal year.
With regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
NASA, we have provided $13.328 billion, a $138 million figure below the
administration's request. In part, this reduction represents the fact
that due to the space station assembly delays, we may be reducing
planned space shuttle launches from eight to six in fiscal year 1999.
NASA's science and aeronautics technical account is below the 1998
level, but is $89 million above the President's request.
We plan to continue our positive working relationship with NASA's
Administrator, Dan Goldin, to ensure that our final bill reflects our
mutual priorities involving science, research, manned space flight, as
well as space station assembly.
Moving into AmeriCorps, we have decided that instead of entering into
an extended floor fight involving the funding for the Corporation of
National and Community Service, the committee intends to first work
very closely with our colleagues in the other body. This bill zeroes
that program. It is pretty apparent, though, to the Members of the
House that in the past when such discussions and actions have taken
place, we finally come to a resolution in conference that reflected
that broad will of both bodies, and I anticipate that that will be the
case in this instance.
Finally, I would like to express my deep reservations to the
President of attaching H.R. 2, the public housing reform bill, to this
important funding bill in which HUD is just one important component of
a much broader and difficult package. While I certainly understand the
reasons that we are once again being asked to carry this heavy load
that essentially is an authorizing load, it is my fervent hope that
authorizing committees of jurisdiction will work to find an acceptable
compromise with all parties so that this measure does not unfairly;
that is, the authorizing side does not unfairly bring down an
appropriations bill that otherwise should be signed into law. I trust
that the leadership will work with us to assure that the overall VA-HUD
bill, which currently strikes a delicate balance, will not ultimately
be placed in jeopardy.
In closing, my colleagues, in terms of this portion of any formal
remarks I might have, outside of expressing the pleasure that I have
had working with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes),
and the reality that we think this bill, that is the appropriations
bill, indeed does, once again, reflect the best of nonpartisan effort
in dealing with very complex programs. That product is the result of
the hard work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), first and
foremost.
I want to further acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Del
Davis and David Reich, and Fredette West from the minority staff, as
well as Paul Thomson, who is serving as my clerk today; Tim Peterson,
Valerie Baldwin, and Dena Baron; from my own staff, David LesStrang,
Alex Heslop and Jeff Schockey.
{time} 0930
I want to take a moment to pay special tribute and attention to my
committee staff director, Frank Cushing, who, unfortunately, could not
be with us today due to the death of Alan Tack Hammer, his wife Amy's
father.
[[Page H5745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.001
[[Page H5746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.002
[[Page H5747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.003
[[Page H5748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.004
[[Page H5749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.005
[[Page H5750]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before making my formal remarks, I want to take just a
moment to express to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the
chairman, the extreme pleasure and honor I deem it to have been able to
work with him on the VA-HUD subcommittee for so many years. During that
period of time he and I have been able to establish a very personal
friendship, and I think it is important for all my colleagues to know
and understand that the bill that we bring before the House today is
one that he and I have crafted together, under circumstances where he
has at all times been extremely fair to me. He has been cooperative in
every respect, in terms of all of my concerns relative to this
legislation, and serving with the gentleman has been one of the great
honors of my career. I want him to know that, as we take this bill
through the House, that all the courtesies, all the professional
consideration that he has afforded me is deeply appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bittersweet moment, bringing to the floor
with my chairman the last VA-HUD spending measure that I will have the
privilege to handle. In many ways, this 1999 bill resembles all the
earlier bills of this subcommittee that I have worked on. It does much
to provide for veterans, for housing, community development, for
environmental protection and emergency management, and for science and
education throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, it also falls short in
satisfying many of the legitimate needs in some of these areas.
There is much in this legislation that I am proud of and I support
without hesitation. There are also provisions and funding levels that I
hope will be changed as we move through the process.
The gentleman from California has detailed the important aspects of
the bill and I will not repeat them. I would like to take a moment or
two, though, to address a few areas of the bill.
In the housing area I am pleased to say that we have been able to
provide badly needed increases in some programs, including public
housing capital funds, the Hope VI program for modernization of
distressed public housing, and homeless assistance grants. I am also
glad to report that the bill provides an increase for fair housing
programs, and I appreciate the efforts of both the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, and also our colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), in working out a mutually
satisfactory arrangement in this area.
Another positive development in the bill is the 17,000 new housing
assistance vouchers that are provided to help families make the
transition from welfare to work. However, I note the number provided is
considerably less than the number requested by the administration,
which was 50,000 vouchers for welfare to work and another 34,000
vouchers to help provide permanent homes for the homeless. These are
areas where the need is great, and I intend to offer an amendment to
increase the number of new vouchers provided.
The administration is very concerned that the committee's bill
includes no funding for the corporation for national and community
service, the AmeriCorps program. I think everyone in the chamber knows
that there will be no signed VA-HUD bill without adequate AmeriCorps
funding. Apparently, a majority of the House believe some measure of
victory can be claimed if the bill, as passed by the House, contains no
funding for this initiative, even if the conference agreement does. At
any rate, I am sure that the bill presented to the President will
contain funding for AmeriCorps.
Another provision that causes the administration much concern is that
dealing with the Kyoto protocol. The administration has repeatedly
stated that there will be no implementation of the Kyoto protocol
unless and until the Senate ratifies a treaty. Thus, the provision is
unnecessary and the accompanying report language is so broad and vague
as to be nearly meaningless. But the signal it might send to some, that
even working for educational and outreach purposes is not to be
permitted, is, to me, just plain short-sighted.
Funding for EPA's Superfund program has been capped at last year's
level of $1.5 billion, $650 million below the request. In addition,
brownfields funding has been reduced $15 million below the 1998 level,
and the bill contains a provision limiting those funds to assessments
only, no money for brownfields cleanups.
Most of the Nation's mayors strongly support the brownfields program
and regard the lack of funds for cleanup as the number one impediment
in realizing the full potential of the program. At the appropriate
time, I will offer an amendment, along with the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), to strike the provision limiting the
brownfields program.
The bill, as reported from committee, contained a troubling provision
for the Consumer Product Safety Commission that has the effect of
delaying possible rulemaking regarding fire-retardant chemicals in
upholstered furniture. The provision was a triumph of the special
interests over the national good of saving lives and money currently
lost through fires involving furniture that does not have fire-
retardant aspects. The rule we adopted included a self-executing
provision that modified the original language. While the new provisions
are a modest improvement, they still would have the effect desired by
industry of delaying CPSC's rulemaking.
The National Science Foundation fared pretty well in the committee's
recommendations, receiving about two-thirds of the requested increase
for research activities. Still, I wish we could have done more, and
especially in the area of education and human resources. For NASA's
science programs, we were able to provide an increase above the budget,
but the recommended amount is still nearly $150 million below the 1998
level. And the problems with the International Space Station continue.
I am afraid our recommended cut of $170 million would have to be
restored at some point.
If the estimates of the independent Chabrow report on the station are
correct, chances are very good that even more funds than those
requested in the budget will be required. I will do my best to ensure
that the agency's science programs are not the source from which we
make up the inevitable shortfalls in the space station.
In closing, let me say once again that it has been a true pleasure to
work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, on
this bill. We do not always agree completely on every measure, but we
have been able to resolve our differences always in an amicable manner.
I want to thank him and his staff for all the courtesies and
consideration that they have extended to me. I particularly want to say
a word of thanks to Frank Cushing, the subcommittee's staff director,
and along with the chairman I want to extend my condolences to Frank
and Amy over the passing of her father.
I also want to express my appreciation of Paul Thompson, Tim
Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Dena Baron, who is a detailee to our
subcommittee, along with Jeff Shockey and Alex Heslop on the Chairman's
personal staff. And my special thanks also to two of the members of the
minority staff who have been invaluable to me, Del Davis and David
Reich, along with Fredette West of my own congressional staff.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say again that no matter what our
differences are relative to this bill, I believe that the chairman and
I, in taking this bill to conference, will be able to work out those
differences and bring back to this House the kind of a bill that we can
all support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Joe Knollenberg), my colleague from the
committee.
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today in strong support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I also
want to extend thanks to the ranking member, the
[[Page H5751]]
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Louis Stokes). As everybody knows, he is
retiring this year. And while he has received a number of accolades, we
continue to add to those, and I want to express mine again today. I
want to join my colleagues in wishing him a fond farewell. He served
the body well, he served his constituents well, and he will be missed.
I would also like to thank, in particular, the staff. Frank Cushing,
who, as has been mentioned, could not be here today because of his
loss. We extend our thoughts and prayers to Frank and his family. I
want to, in particular, though, thank this staff, all of them, who have
been remarkably and extraordinarily helpful in a whole lot of things,
so they deserve a lot of credit for helping us craft this bill.
This appropriation bill is unique in that it covers an array of
diverse agencies, ranging from the VA to NASA to the EPA. And it is not
easy to bring this wide range of interests together into a single bill.
However, the chairman, along with the ranking member, have done, I
think, a great job by forging a relationship that makes this all
possible.
H.R. 4194 is a good bill. However, there is one issue I would like to
stress. We have reiterated in report language our intent and
expectation that HUD will adhere to our guidance and award no funds for
insurance-related purposes, even as part of awards to groups that may
use their FHIP funds for a variety of enforcement activities. FHIP, as
everyone must know, should know, is the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program.
I further want to emphasize that the report allocates a portion of
FHIP appropriations to a nationwide audit of discrimination in housing
rentals and sales in 20 communities. Because this proposed audit is
part of the FHIP, and because its purpose is to investigate
discrimination in housing rentals and sales, there should be no
question that any of the funds allocated for it can be used to
investigate practices of property insurers. However, because HUD has,
in the past, interpreted the Fair Housing Act very liberally, I believe
it is necessary to underscore this point.
The committee report can only be understood to mean that absolutely
no funds, no FHIP funds, including those for the nationwide audit and
any awards for packages of activities by private groups, are to be
spent on activities focused on practices of property insurers or their
agents.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that as much as I would
like to support this bill, I cannot, for a number of reasons.
First of all, the Committee on Rules, in the action of this House
yesterday, made in order a totally illegitimate amendment to this bill
by adding the 300-page housing bill and authorization bill. And I want
to read my colleagues something that I just picked up on the press out
of U.S. News today.
It said that the legislation would raise the income levels of people
eligible for public housing. The bill would give greater priority to
people making as much as $40,000 to be admitted to public housing,
allowing them to gain housing before lower-income families. Since no
new public housing is being built, and existing waiting lists are years
long, these lower-income families will have no option whatsoever. A
total of 3 million low-income people would be denied access to public
and federally assisted housing, including 1.8 million seniors and
children.
It went on to quote Secretary Cuomo, HUD Secretary Cuomo, as saying
it is inexcusable that we would take the few units of affordable
housing this Congress has allowed to remain and remove it from the
grasp of the most vulnerable Americans. This means no housing for
America's most vulnerable.
I think that this Congress has no business attaching a proposal like
that to this bill.
{time} 0945
Secondly, I would point out that there are a number of funding level
problems with this bill. The brownfields program is reduced 18 percent
below the President's request. There is very broad and vague language
in the report language which relates to the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change.
I agree with those who say that we should not be taking actions to
implement any treaty before that treaty is ratified, and I would not
vote for that treaty under existing circumstances because of what it
does not require other countries, such as China, to do. It is simply
not strong enough.
But I, nonetheless, believe that the committee language is far too
broad. It even presents educational information about the issue. And I
think that that is clearly simply a favor to special interests and it
is a long-term detriment to America's public health and to the
stability of the world's economy and its climate.
I would say that this also, in my view, underfunds what we ought to
be doing with veterans' health care. And in my judgment, the reason
that we are underfunding veterans' health care, underfunding housing,
underfunding EPA, Superfund and a variety of other programs is because
we have in this bill some $31/2 billion of veterans' health care
costs which are related to the treatment of tobacco-related diseases.
And it seems to me that the taxpayer should not be paying for the
treatment of those diseases, the tobacco companies should.
Since the Committee on Rules determined it was going to make in order
an irrelevant authorization bill, I asked the Committee on Rules to
make in order a relevant authorization amendment; and that amendment
would have simply said that instead of the taxpayers being stuck with
that $31/2 billion worth of tobacco-related health treatment cost
that the tobacco companies be assessed to pay for those costs. That
would have enabled us to increase health care for veterans in this bill
by $1.7 billion and to do some other things about some of these drastic
shortfalls that will only get worse as the problems are compounded.
The Committee on Rules did not choose to do that. That means, in my
view, that this bill is essentially an inadequate bill. And until it
is, I have no intention whatsoever of voting for that.
I do not make these statements to in any way criticize the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
They have done the best they can within the allocation given them. But
the fact is that the allocation is stupid and the fact is that the
Congress is stupid if it does not find a way to require tobacco
companies to meet health care costs that the taxpayers should not be
saddled with. And until we do that, we are not going to have the
resources to meet the other needs facing this country.
It is about time that big tobacco does not have the ear of this
Congress. It is about time that big business loses the ear of this
Congress. It is about time that the public interest once again
prevails.
And, in my view, with the priorities that have been set at a higher
level than the subcommittee has the authority to do anything about,
until those priorities are changed, we should not be supporting the
outcome of those priorities.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill. And as a member
of the committee, I would like to thank the chairman the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Stokes) and their staffs for their hard work and guidance
throughout this year on a whole host of issues, and most particularly
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his extra efforts working
with me to improve the Superfund program, which is so important to New
Jersey, and the special attention of the gentleman and our staff to
issues affecting housing for people with disabilities. Were it not for
their hard work and diligence, those two issues, to my mind, would not
be adequately addressed.
And I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not commend and
recognize the years of service of the ranking
[[Page H5752]]
member the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
My colleague served with my father in Congress when he was in
Congress and was one of the first people to welcome me to this body.
His presence in Congress, as well as his service on this committee,
will be greatly missed. I have been able to count on his expertise any
number of times. His institutional memory is amazing. And his
retirement will, without doubt, affect the committee in countless ways.
I thank the gentleman for his friendship and advice.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly call to my colleagues'
attention page 11 of the committee's report and thank both the ranking
member and the chair for their agreeing to include this language.
This language highlights the problems with the Veterans
Administration's new National Formulary for drugs and medical devices.
This is a potentially explosive issue, and Members of Congress better
have it on their radar screens.
Simply put, the new VA policy is hindering proper medical treatment
of veterans by drastically limiting physicians' in the VA choice of
medicine from a list, or a formulary, that they can prescribe to treat
our veterans.
As this new policy is gradually being put into effect, doctors,
residents of our VA hospitals, and veterans organizations familiar with
the system have relayed some disturbing results. The stories I have
heard from our veterans strike right at the quality of life and care
issues, including one veteran who was forced to switch his Parkinson's
medication and, as a result, is having a recurrence of his Parkinson's
symptoms.
By putting overly restrictive limitations on which type of a medicine
a VA doctor can choose, we are severely restricting access to the
newest and most effective medications available. Unfortunately,
bureaucrats at the VA are assuming that ``one size fits all'' when it
comes to medicine. Well, one medicine does not fit all.
I urge all of my colleagues to review this language and listen to
what our veterans and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are
saying about this issue. This is a critical issue. I support this bill.
This particular issue is one that we should be concentrating on.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) the very hard working and highly
respected member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that the ranking
member has given me to make a few comments on this bill, and I rise to
generally express my satisfaction for the bill in the main.
First let me compliment our chairman the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for the quality of
their contribution to this bill. Year in and year out, through the
process of marking up this bill putting it together, these two
gentlemen, real gentleman, work extremely hard applying their very
formidable talents to coming forth with an extraordinary piece of
legislation under the circumstances that they find themselves and under
the allocations that they are given.
This is I will note, and I will have more to say on it later, the
last bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) the last time he will
be bringing this bill before the full House. And we are terribly
appreciative of his wonderful service over many, many years.
Every year, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
works to strike the right balance in funding what is really an eclectic
mission of vital services and programs to our people. I hope that every
Member of this House appreciates not only the difficulty of that task
but also the sense of fairness that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) bring to it. Their
conscientious approach is certainly evident in the bill that is before
us now.
And in review of it, I am especially pleased with the increased
funding for Veterans Affairs regarding medical and prosthetic research
that we are committing major resources to HUD, funding the important
Community Development Block Grant and Public Housing Operating grants,
that we are increasing money to the EPA for science and technology
research, including research on particulate matter, and that we are
giving greater resources for water assistance grants, which are so
critical to the health of our local communities.
Of course, no appropriation bill can be all things to all people.
Everyone here accepts that fact. But today we have been asked to accept
something more, and it is very unfortunate that extraneous legislation
has been made in order by the rule. Our appropriations bill is not the
place for it, and that is why I join so many of my colleagues in
opposing the rule.
But this appropriations bill is a good bill, and I look forward to
working with the chairman and ranking member in making it better by
increasing funding to underfunded programs as we move the bill through
the process.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield
21/4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for the work that they
have done on this well-rounded bill. I have a few problems with the
environmental riders, but let us put that aside for now and speak about
the positives in this bill.
First let me indicate that I want to support and identify myself with
the comments of my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) particularly on the issue he outlined with respect to
the Veterans Administration.
I certainly say we must accept the fact that this bill contains
language concerning a time credit of $20 million to the Veterans'
Integrated Service network. And that is what is needed, particularly in
New Jersey and for the northeast.
There are certifiable needs throughout New Jersey, from East Orange
and the Lyon's facility and throughout other veterans hospitals in the
region. And I certainly call upon the Secretary of the VA to act
immediately on the committee's direction after this bill is signed into
law.
But let me give a little more time to the subject of the FHA single-
family mortgage issue. I want to rise in strong support of this
subject. It is strongly needed. The increase in the FHA loan limit is
an issue that we have long supported on the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I have worked together
to urge attention of the committee to this issue. And certainly, there
is nothing that is more representative of the American dream than the
64-year history of the FHA single-family insurance program.
And particularly, as a representative from New Jersey, I want to
point out that in states like New Jersey, but not exclusively New
Jersey, where loan prices are traditionally higher than in other parts
of the country, the increase is fundamental if the FHA loan program is
to be a viable one. We need this increase urgently, it is overdue. And
I thank the committee for their intelligent and far-reaching, far-
searching work on this issue.
I want to commend the Committee for its work on what I consider to be
a well-rounded bill. While I do have reservations on several of the so-
called ``environmental riders'', included in this legislation, I want
to rise in strong support of the provisions to increase the FHA single-
family mortgage insurance limit. In addition to it being good public
policy, the revenues raised by this measure are being put toward
necessary programs--$10 million in needed medical research for disabled
veterans, and $70 million of the National Science Foundation which will
be used by colleges and universities, like Rutgers and Princeton in my
own state New Jersey, to help educate our next generation of
scientists.
The increase in the FHA loan limit is an issue that I have long
supported. For a state like New Jersey this increase is key. I worked
with Congressman McCollum to gather signatures on a letter to Chairman
Lewis and Ranking Minority Member Lewis Stokes urging that this
provision be included in the VA/HUD bill.
Throughout its 64-year history, the FHA single family insurance has
enabled millions of American families to achieve the dream of home
ownership The American Dream at no cost to taxpayers. It has provided
countless home ownership opportunities to millions of
[[Page H5753]]
deserving families who were denied or deprived of owning a home through
the conventional market. The FHA program has also generated significant
revenue benefiting the U.S. Treasury and helped stimulate our nation's
economy through housing and neighborhood development.
Yet, FHA's effectiveness is limited because its loan limits have not
been allowed to keep pace with market development and changes. Many
families have been denied home ownership opportunities because the
arbitrary constraints on the maximum mortgage amount prevent FHA from
reaching many moderate-income families. In States like New Jersey where
home prices are traditionally higher than in other parts of the
country, the increase is fundamental if the FHA loan program is to be
viable.
Under the measure included in the committee-reported bill, the
general limit on FHA loans would be increased from $86,317 to $109,032
(i.e. from 38% to 48% of the Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac ``conforming''
loan limit), while the limit on FHA loans in high-cost areas from
$170,362 to $197,620 (i.e. from 75% to 87% of conforming loan limit).
The Administration had requested that FHA loan limits be raised to be a
nationwide ceiling of $227,150. The provisions included in this bill
represent a fair common sense compromise that will provide a measure of
fairness to American consumers residing in under served markets, and
generate $80 million in additional revenues.
Home ownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream. This FHA
loan-limit increase proposal included in the bill helps to further that
dream for many hard-working Americans who reside in those markets that
are currently under served.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on an issue that is vital to the
veterans of New Jersey and the Northeast.
This bill contains language that urges the Veterans Administration to
provide for a one time credit of $20 million to the Veterans Integrated
Service Network (VISN) Three, which serves veterans of New Jersey and
the Northeast. This language is right and fair.
A General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that the Network 3
Director, James Farsetta, returned $20 million for the Fiscal Year 1997
budget to the Veterans Administration national offices in Washington.
According to the GAO, the Network 3 Director found ``no prudent use''
for these funds. Frankly, with all the funding cutbacks already
negatively impacting the justifiable health care needs of the veterans
of Network 3, I strongly believe that there are many prudent ways this
money could be spent.
At the same time this money was returned to Washington, my office had
numerous certifiable complaints from the East Orange and Lyons
facilities. Most recently, a patient at Lyons Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, which mainly serves psychiatric patients, was found dead after
wandering off site unsupervised. He was missing for three days and
found only 150 feet from the Hospital's administration building. It is
interesting to note that due to funding restraints, New Jersey's VA
hospitals have eliminated over 240 jobs. It is obvious to me that the
$20 million could have been spent in many prudent ways.
The implementation of the VA's new funding formula known as Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) has negatively impacted funding of
veterans' health care in New Jersey and the northeastern United States.
New Jersey and the Northeast will lose millions of dollars over the
next three years.
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 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 cutbacks on top of the $20 million giveaway,
there has been an erosion of confidence between veterans and the VA.
This erosion threatens to destroy the solemn commitment that this
Nation made to its veterans when they were called to duty.
I call on the Secretary of the VA to act immediately on the
Committee's direction after this bill is signed into law.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has 113/4
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) has 131/2
minutes remaining.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) another very distinguished member
of our subcommittee and an extremely hard-working lady.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and
admired member and leader the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I
want to thank my chairman, who has been both fair and efficient in this
bill. And I am urging being the Congress to pass this VA-HUD bill.
It was the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who said that Congress
is to define problems and differences and to devise solutions to these
problems. I think that is the way the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies worked to do this. They were not able in many
instances to solve all the problems, but they did try to find solutions
to many of them. And I want to commend our committee for that.
There are some things in the bill that I would like to go have seen
to have appropriated more money to do the good things that we started
some time ago, and one of them was the Corporation for National and
Community Services. Another one is housing. And I think the committee
addressed housing in a good way. But of course, the more housing
vouchers we can receive in poor communities, the better it will be.
So I appreciate the committee addressing the housing voucher
situation and raising that level. And I repeat, I would have liked to
have seen more.
I would also like to see our committee continue in its direction to
improve the environment, not to cut back with drastic reduction, but to
continue to provide those assistance that we so desperately need.
{time} 1000
One of my other major concerns to the committee is that the Economic
Development Initiative, which has helped so many of us in cities where
we have so many poor people being helped by government, providing jobs,
doing the kinds of things that good job creation can do, I want to
commend the committee for looking at that, but we did not go far enough
in providing enough money for the economic development initiative to
take care of the cities.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), a member of the
committee, for a colloquy.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the
subcommittee, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
to enter into a colloquy to clarify report language in this bill
pertaining to a rulemaking being considered by the EPA.
As my colleague knows, report language in this bill addresses the
security risks associated with making risk management plan data
available on the Internet under an EPA rulemaking according to section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act. Members of our committee have heard from
many members of their community who expressed concern that making this
information available to the public via the Internet could have grave
consequences. This type of data, which is already available to relevant
businesses and public safety and law enforcement officers, could result
in mass destruction in the hands of those intent on doing harm. These
security concerns have been echoed by law enforcement and national
intelligence representatives in discussions with the EPA. However, the
EPA has been unable to adequately address the national security
concerns that have been raised.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that discussions between
representative law enforcement, the intelligence community and the EPA
are ongoing and that a resolution of this issue will occur by the end
of this year.
Would the gentleman agree that this is an accurate statement?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, the EPA has been working closely with
FBI and other law enforcement and security experts to develop a system
limiting inappropriate access to such information. That system is
expected to be completed by the end of 1998 as the committee expects to
be updated on a monthly basis on the progress and development of
security protocol.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, when will the agency actually implement the
protocol?
Mr. LEWIS of California. The agency must include a formal protocol
proposal as part of their fiscal year 1999 operations plan before
implementing any security protocol.
Mr. HOBSON. Thank the gentleman from California for his
clarification. I
[[Page H5754]]
think we both agree that this issue is one of vital importance to our
communities and law enforcement officials, and I appreciate the
gentleman's assistance in this matter.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I would just like to take this
moment to thank a member of my staff who has worked on this. She has
been with me for 7 years. Jennifer Cutcher is leaving to get married
and move to Florida, and we are sorry to lose her in our office.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time she
might consume, within limits, to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to an item that is
contained in the other body's VA-HUD appropriations bill. It is my
understanding that the other body has allowed $7 million for the water
systems improvement project in the village of Hempstead, New York. I
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) this program is very
important to a large number of my constituents. I would be interested
in knowing if the gentleman will give consideration in conference to
accepting this project?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy), as we have discussed personally and in many a
way she has attempted to bring this item to my attention, it indeed is
our intention to address this question in the conference. We are going
to do everything we can to not only recognize the importance but to
assist the gentlewoman and her district as well.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to, at the onset, recognize the
service of our distinguished colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) who has
so ably led this subcommittee as initially chairman, first as a Member,
of course, and finally now as ranking member. I think that his steady
hand and intellect, keen intellect, and efforts have really done a
remarkable job in terms of trying to deal with some of the neediest in
our Nation. I am most familiar, of course, with his work on housing and
our mutual interest in homelessness and other issues.
But, Mr. Chairman, just speaking to the merits of this briefly, I
wanted to express my concerns about some of the fundamental problems
with the bill that we have before us. Regrettably, we have serious
problems, but it seems as though, notwithstanding positive revenue
projections that continue to buoy our economy, that none of the benefit
of that positive economy are translating into some of the essential
programs that we should have, and this bill even falls short of the
budget agreement that was written just last year with regards to some
of the agreements on environmental expenditures.
I am very concerned about the attacks on the environment and the
riders in this bill. I am concerned about the political game that is
going on with regards to providing zero funding for AmeriCorps. I am
concerned about the continued expenditure of billions of dollars on the
space station, notwithstanding the fact that commitments year after
year are not met. I am concerned about the fact that it is written in
such a way as to cause these problems. And the fact is, if this were
not enough, now we are going to pile onto this bill unrelated riders on
bills such as the abolishment of some of the public housing
responsibilities that the national government has committed to for the
past fifty years.
Therefore, I rise to express my concerns and point out some
fundamental problems in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill for FY 1999.
Once again, the Republican led Appropriations Committee has provided an
uneven product within sufficient resources to meet the needs identified
by the Administration, the Congress and the American people. This bill
has several serious flaws: it underfunds veterans medical care; attacks
our natural resources and environment; abandons the Administration's
AmeriCorps program and includes continued funding for a budget busting
international space station that will cost American taxpayers more than
$100 billion in the final form. In its current state as written, this
bill has ensured a collision course with the Senate, House Democrats
and the President, but the intended amendment and design crafted by the
rule will further warp the measure beyond reason, taking on more
controversy and a further blow to this measures unbalance.
The VA-HUD bill appropriates a total of $42.3 billion for VA programs
and benefits. Unfortunately, this bill underfunds veterans medical
care. The report language states that the Committee has provided an
increase for medical care to maintain the 1998 level. While technically
true at the amount level, this is accomplished only by reducing funding
for VA construction activities and projects by 20% less than current
funding levels. Discounting this artifice, the total amount provided
for veterans medical care is $276 million less than the 1998 level.
According to the Independent Budget issued by major veteran service
organizations, the Committee's recommendation is $525 million below the
1999 current service level, and nearly $1.8 billion below their
recommended 1999 funding amount.
The funding levels for the housing and community development programs
in the VA-HUD bill, are satisfactory compared to 1998. The bill
allocates $26.5 billion for HUD programs, an increase from FY 1998. The
measure increases funding for the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
programs and with the inclusion of $100 million in new funds for
incremental vouchers. Frankly, given the tremendous need for housing
assistance that exists across this country, we could have used the
entire Administration's request in incremental, or new, section 8
assistance. Given the fact the we have not received incremental funding
for many years, however, this is a positive first step in recognizing
the severity of the need. This urgent need would argue for the
elimination of the provision in this measure which requires a three-
month delay in re-issuance of section 8 housing vouchers and
certificates. There is no public policy reason and only budget cost
scoring behind this 3 month delay provision. It hopefully will be
dropped before it becomes law and we will provide dollars without
shift.
I am also very supportive of the changes to the FHA loan limit an
authorization matter with little to do with the appropriation, no doubt
bouyed by the positive CBO scoring. Increases in the floor and the
ceiling of the FHA loan limit will make a more viable FHA program
because it will achieve market relevance. The increase in the ceiling
to 87% of the conforming loan limit will help middle income home buyers
in the high cost areas purchase homes. The 48% of the conforming loan
limit for the FHA floor is approximately what the level was in an
amendment I offered in the 1994 Housing Reauthorization bill. It's been
to long a wait for action on FHA modernization. These changes are
critically important to many, many areas of the country because the
current floor, which serves as the minimum has not been high enough to
cover the real costs of building a new home in most regions of the
nation for a long time. The bill also makes a positive change that
should help deal with disparities in limits in geographically
contiguous areas.
I strongly oppose the amendment that will be offered by Mr. Lazio to
this bill later today. His amendment would attach a reworked public
housing measure, H.R. 2, to the appropriations bill. This remains a
faulty policy and is potentially quite harmful to most communities.
Attachment to the appropriations bill is short-sighted simply and an
end run of a controversial bill around the process which could
potentially stall the important HUD appropriations bill for FY99. This
fundamental change being superimposed upon this bill should be
considered upon its merits rather than placed upon a must enact funding
measure.
In offering this amendment, and indeed protecting it under the rule
from points of order, this House majority will be disrupting ongoing,
bi-partisan negotiations to resolve major differences between H.R. 2
and its Senate counterpart, S. 462 attempting to gloss over legitimate
policy differences on income targeting, ``home rule'' deregulations,
minimum rents and other issues. While that process has not been in an
actual House/Senate Conference, as it well should be, at least there
have been ongoing discussions. This appropriations slam dunk will
completely undermine that process. I urge opposition to the Lazio
amendment, which will undercut the role of the authorizing committee
and which could effectively jeopardize, for no legitimate reason, the
progress being made by the positive HUD funding in this bill. I would
suggest that the inclusion of the public housing controversy into the
VA-HUD bill could be the last straw on the camel's back for many
members trying to decide whether to support this appropriations bill.
[[Page H5755]]
I also want to note that I have filed several amendments to the HUD-
VA bill. Two amendments would provide an additional $30 million to the
highly successful, yet consistently under funded Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter program. I don't
intend to offer both but intend to discuss one. The charities that work
in partnership with the FEMA program continue to be overloaded. Demand
for food and shelter is rising and the funding level of EFS has, to say
the least, not kept pace with the need.
The other amendment that I have filed would set in law a requirement
that owners who intend to prepay their mortgage on low-income
multifamily housing properties would have to provide one year notice to
the local jurisdictions and to the tenants of those buildings, whose
lives are being totally disrupted by such action. It is a reasonable
amendment and one I hope this body will see fit to accept.
I note that the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI)
fund has been allocated $80 million. I am working with my Chairwoman,
Mrs. Roukema, in the Banking Committee in the Financial Institutions
Subcommittee on reauthorizing this program. We are making improvements,
as the CDFI management has, in response to some of the concerns brought
out over the last year or so. I think we will have a stronger, more
viable CDFI as a result of those actions and that this program which
can have such a positive impact in communities, indeed justifies a
solid appropriation.
Disappointingly, this bill lacks adequate funding for much needed
environmental cleanup and natural resources conservation. Specifically,
$1.5 billion is included for the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Superfund program. This amount is $650 million below the budget
request and the level agreed to in last year's balanced budget
agreement. As a result, numerous contaminated toxic waste sites
throughout the country, including specific sites in my district in
Minnesota, will remain hazardous to people's health. In addition, the
popular and successful Brownfields program is reduced 18 percent below
the Administration's request. For the second straight year, the
Committee has limited the Brownfields program to assessments; no
funding is available for toxic waste site cleanup. According to a
report issued by the U.S. Conference of Mayors earlier this year:
``Cities participating in the study identified several major obstacles
to the redevelopment of Brownfields. Cities ranked the lack of clean up
funds as the number one impediment.'' This is certainly not the time to
turn our backs on cleaning up toxic waste in our local communities who
desperately need Federal assistance.
The Committee funded the Administration's Climate Change Technology
Initiative at $99 million. This amount is less than one-half of the
$205 million requested. Furthermore, the Leadership included vague
language that limits the use of funds regarding activities related to
the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Specifically, this bill attempts
to prohibit the use of funds in the act to ``develop, propose, or issue
rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementing,
or in contemplation of implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol. Under
existing statutory authorities, the EPA has ongoing activities to
develop and issue regulations that would be affected by the Kyoto
provisions. Proponents of the provisions argue that this language
prohibits the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until ratification
of a treaty by the Senate. However, I disagree. These provisions could
well restrict the United States from playing a leadership role in the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as they at least undercut the EPA
moral leadership. Furthermore, the Committee report also balks at EPA's
efforts to promote educational outreach and further research on the
policies underlying the Kyoto Protocol until or unless the Protocol is
ratified by the Senate. This clearly illustrates that the congressional
leadership is indifferent to our environmental stewardship
responsibilities in this Nation.
As reported, the bill contains no funding for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, or AmeriCorps. This lack of language
will terminate the programs. This continued effort by the House
Republican Majority to eliminate the Administration's national service
program will ensure confrontation with the Senate, who supports the
program firmly, and the Administration. The Administration had made its
support of AmeriCorps abundantly clear. Despite this, the Republican
leaders once again have elected to support a charade of cutting or
eliminating AmeriCorps funds in the House knowing the conference
agreement with the Senate will restore them.
Furthermore, this bill appropriates $2.1 billion for continued
development of the international space station. According to some of
the most qualified scientists in America, the international space
station has little or no scientific value and the American people will
gain almost nothing except for the experience of wasting billions on
building a space station in orbit. Congress should not invest another
penny in this immensely overbudget and overdue program. This is money
that can be used to strengthen our National Parks, reinvest in our
children's education, provide adequate health care to our Nation's
veterans and restore pre-1995 rescission level funding for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter
Program.
Overall, this legislation meets some of the needs of our Nation's
veterans and makes a good first step in the right direction for low-
income housing programs. However, I agree with the Administration that
this legislation is highly flawed in its attacks upon environmental
cleanup, elimination of the successful AmeriCorps program and a budget
busting international space station. I urge all Members to vote no on
this measure.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests
for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for
putting together a very reasonable piece of legislation. However, I
have one concern which I want to bring to the floor.
The $16 billion upholstery manufacture industry will receive an early
Christmas present this year, Mr. Chairman. The industry is laughing its
way to the bank. Thousands of Americans might die in house fires. They
will be burnt to death because the industry spent thousands of dollars
lobbying against a national upholstery flammability standard. This
absolves the industry from responsibility and preventing their products
from literally going up in smoke.
Thirty-seven hundred people a year are killed by house fires. One
thousand of them are children, twice as likely to die in a fire than
adults. An additional 1,700 youngsters are injured due to residential
fires. This bill blocks the progress that the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has made in the development of an upholstered furniture
flammability standard. This provision not only delays the project but
is totally redundant, provides no further benefit to the American
public.
Upholstered furniture fires are the number one fire hazard in this
country, yet we are still waiting for flammability standards, and while
we wait over 25,000 men, women and children have died as a result of
burning furniture. The Consumer Product Safety Commission calculates
that an upholstery flammability standards will have an annual net
savings of $300 million. This $300 million will go directly to American
taxpayers because their local fire departments will not be called to
extinguish as many residential fires.
Prevention of fires is not just a noteworthy goal. Flammability
standards are attainable, they are cost effective, and they make sense.
We already require institutions such as hospitals and prisons to
purchase flame-retardant furniture. Are we saying that we are more
interested in protecting prisoners from upholstery fires than our
children?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for all the
work he has done over so many years on important issues, particularly
on his pro-environmental stance.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of my concerns over the anti-
environmental riders in this bill. As in years past, the Republican
majority has once again inserted a number of anti-environmental riders
into the bill and its accompanying report. As
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(House of Representatives - July 17, 1998)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages H5743-H5821]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Pursuant to House Resolution 501
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 4194.
{time} 0919
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4194) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent
agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for
[[Page H5744]]
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to at the outset
mention to my colleagues that beyond the substance of this bill, which
is considerable, during the day today I expect that we will have a good
deal of discussion of the reality that there is another piece of
substance that indeed deserves our recognition, for as many people
know, and I would like the Members who are on their way over time here
today to know, that this is the last bill that I will have the
privilege of working with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Stokes) on, on the floor. I think everybody knows of our friendship,
and I think as this debate goes forward, people will be reminded of the
incredible contribution that the gentleman has made, not just to this
legislation, not just to our committee, but to the House as a whole.
Before we perhaps discuss that in a little different environment than
the one we have on the floor presently, I would like to spend a few
moments with a brief overview of the fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD bill.
Due to the delayed budget process and upcoming election cycle, we
find ourselves working under a very compressed schedule. This is
evidenced by the fact that our Senate VA-HUD counterparts have already
moved their bill through the full committee, and last evening they
completed their debate on the bill. This morning they will begin simply
the voting process. So they really are ahead of us in that cycle, a
most unusual circumstance.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I are hopeful that we can
have a conference report completed before the August recess. That is a
goal that may be a bit optimistic, but we both are committed to pushing
the process forward and getting a bill that can be signed to the
President's desk.
The bill before us today is within our allocation in both budget
authority and outlays. Our proposal provides $70.894 billion, including
$10.2 billion for Section 8 rental assistance. Hidden gimmicks in the
President's request, which includes items like receipts from the
tobacco settlement, which of course is a fiction, those items make our
total $70,894 billion in discretionary spending. They appear to be over
the budget request. We are, in fact, if we take out those gimmicks,
some $2 billion in real spending below the administration's request.
The VA-HUD subcommittee, by cutting over $25 billion over the last
several years, has demonstrated that we can, in a bipartisan way,
reduce the rate of growth of government without putting those who rely
upon these programs for assistance, including veterans and residents of
public housing, for example, without putting those citizens in
jeopardy.
With regard to veterans' programs, this bill provides $17.057 billion
for veterans' medical care, an increase of $29 million over the
administration's request. VA medical research is funded at $320
million, an increase of $20 million over the President's request, and
$48 million over last year's bill.
Within HUD's budget, we have funded the Section 8 rental assistance
program at $10.2 billion. The CDBG program and drug elimination grant
programs have been funded at the budget request of $4.725 billion, and
$290 million respectively.
We have also provided $100 million in vouchers designed to implement
welfare reform. The section 202 elderly housing program has been funded
at $645 million, $109 million over the President's request.
Section 811 disabled housing program has been funded at $194 million,
which is an increase of $20 million over the request. Accounts within
HUD which have demonstrated positive results have been increased. Those
that either are without measurable results, or which have not worked
well at all, have been treated differently under this measure.
With regard to the Environmental Protection Agency, we have slightly
increased the Agency's budget over the current fiscal year to $7.422
billion. This included level funding of $1.5 billion for the Superfund,
a program that has been described as being broken by the administrator.
We have been waiting now for several years to receive that promised fix
for the Superfund program. We have also funded the President's request
for Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, SRF, at $775 million, a
$50 million increase over fiscal year 1998, and a Clean Water SRF at
$1.250 billion, an increase of $175 million over the President's
request. Finally, we have fully funded the President's clean water
action plan.
Moving to the National Science Foundation, this bill has increased
funding over last year's level for research by $269 million, for major
equipment, by $16 million and educational programs by $10 million. As a
result of the Frelinghuysen-Neumann amendment, which was adopted in the
full committee, the funding for important research programs has been
increased by approximately 10 percent over the current fiscal year.
With regard to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
NASA, we have provided $13.328 billion, a $138 million figure below the
administration's request. In part, this reduction represents the fact
that due to the space station assembly delays, we may be reducing
planned space shuttle launches from eight to six in fiscal year 1999.
NASA's science and aeronautics technical account is below the 1998
level, but is $89 million above the President's request.
We plan to continue our positive working relationship with NASA's
Administrator, Dan Goldin, to ensure that our final bill reflects our
mutual priorities involving science, research, manned space flight, as
well as space station assembly.
Moving into AmeriCorps, we have decided that instead of entering into
an extended floor fight involving the funding for the Corporation of
National and Community Service, the committee intends to first work
very closely with our colleagues in the other body. This bill zeroes
that program. It is pretty apparent, though, to the Members of the
House that in the past when such discussions and actions have taken
place, we finally come to a resolution in conference that reflected
that broad will of both bodies, and I anticipate that that will be the
case in this instance.
Finally, I would like to express my deep reservations to the
President of attaching H.R. 2, the public housing reform bill, to this
important funding bill in which HUD is just one important component of
a much broader and difficult package. While I certainly understand the
reasons that we are once again being asked to carry this heavy load
that essentially is an authorizing load, it is my fervent hope that
authorizing committees of jurisdiction will work to find an acceptable
compromise with all parties so that this measure does not unfairly;
that is, the authorizing side does not unfairly bring down an
appropriations bill that otherwise should be signed into law. I trust
that the leadership will work with us to assure that the overall VA-HUD
bill, which currently strikes a delicate balance, will not ultimately
be placed in jeopardy.
In closing, my colleagues, in terms of this portion of any formal
remarks I might have, outside of expressing the pleasure that I have
had working with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes),
and the reality that we think this bill, that is the appropriations
bill, indeed does, once again, reflect the best of nonpartisan effort
in dealing with very complex programs. That product is the result of
the hard work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), first and
foremost.
I want to further acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Del
Davis and David Reich, and Fredette West from the minority staff, as
well as Paul Thomson, who is serving as my clerk today; Tim Peterson,
Valerie Baldwin, and Dena Baron; from my own staff, David LesStrang,
Alex Heslop and Jeff Schockey.
{time} 0930
I want to take a moment to pay special tribute and attention to my
committee staff director, Frank Cushing, who, unfortunately, could not
be with us today due to the death of Alan Tack Hammer, his wife Amy's
father.
[[Page H5745]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.001
[[Page H5746]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.002
[[Page H5747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.003
[[Page H5748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.004
[[Page H5749]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17JY98.005
[[Page H5750]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before making my formal remarks, I want to take just a
moment to express to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the
chairman, the extreme pleasure and honor I deem it to have been able to
work with him on the VA-HUD subcommittee for so many years. During that
period of time he and I have been able to establish a very personal
friendship, and I think it is important for all my colleagues to know
and understand that the bill that we bring before the House today is
one that he and I have crafted together, under circumstances where he
has at all times been extremely fair to me. He has been cooperative in
every respect, in terms of all of my concerns relative to this
legislation, and serving with the gentleman has been one of the great
honors of my career. I want him to know that, as we take this bill
through the House, that all the courtesies, all the professional
consideration that he has afforded me is deeply appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bittersweet moment, bringing to the floor
with my chairman the last VA-HUD spending measure that I will have the
privilege to handle. In many ways, this 1999 bill resembles all the
earlier bills of this subcommittee that I have worked on. It does much
to provide for veterans, for housing, community development, for
environmental protection and emergency management, and for science and
education throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, it also falls short in
satisfying many of the legitimate needs in some of these areas.
There is much in this legislation that I am proud of and I support
without hesitation. There are also provisions and funding levels that I
hope will be changed as we move through the process.
The gentleman from California has detailed the important aspects of
the bill and I will not repeat them. I would like to take a moment or
two, though, to address a few areas of the bill.
In the housing area I am pleased to say that we have been able to
provide badly needed increases in some programs, including public
housing capital funds, the Hope VI program for modernization of
distressed public housing, and homeless assistance grants. I am also
glad to report that the bill provides an increase for fair housing
programs, and I appreciate the efforts of both the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, and also our colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), in working out a mutually
satisfactory arrangement in this area.
Another positive development in the bill is the 17,000 new housing
assistance vouchers that are provided to help families make the
transition from welfare to work. However, I note the number provided is
considerably less than the number requested by the administration,
which was 50,000 vouchers for welfare to work and another 34,000
vouchers to help provide permanent homes for the homeless. These are
areas where the need is great, and I intend to offer an amendment to
increase the number of new vouchers provided.
The administration is very concerned that the committee's bill
includes no funding for the corporation for national and community
service, the AmeriCorps program. I think everyone in the chamber knows
that there will be no signed VA-HUD bill without adequate AmeriCorps
funding. Apparently, a majority of the House believe some measure of
victory can be claimed if the bill, as passed by the House, contains no
funding for this initiative, even if the conference agreement does. At
any rate, I am sure that the bill presented to the President will
contain funding for AmeriCorps.
Another provision that causes the administration much concern is that
dealing with the Kyoto protocol. The administration has repeatedly
stated that there will be no implementation of the Kyoto protocol
unless and until the Senate ratifies a treaty. Thus, the provision is
unnecessary and the accompanying report language is so broad and vague
as to be nearly meaningless. But the signal it might send to some, that
even working for educational and outreach purposes is not to be
permitted, is, to me, just plain short-sighted.
Funding for EPA's Superfund program has been capped at last year's
level of $1.5 billion, $650 million below the request. In addition,
brownfields funding has been reduced $15 million below the 1998 level,
and the bill contains a provision limiting those funds to assessments
only, no money for brownfields cleanups.
Most of the Nation's mayors strongly support the brownfields program
and regard the lack of funds for cleanup as the number one impediment
in realizing the full potential of the program. At the appropriate
time, I will offer an amendment, along with the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), to strike the provision limiting the
brownfields program.
The bill, as reported from committee, contained a troubling provision
for the Consumer Product Safety Commission that has the effect of
delaying possible rulemaking regarding fire-retardant chemicals in
upholstered furniture. The provision was a triumph of the special
interests over the national good of saving lives and money currently
lost through fires involving furniture that does not have fire-
retardant aspects. The rule we adopted included a self-executing
provision that modified the original language. While the new provisions
are a modest improvement, they still would have the effect desired by
industry of delaying CPSC's rulemaking.
The National Science Foundation fared pretty well in the committee's
recommendations, receiving about two-thirds of the requested increase
for research activities. Still, I wish we could have done more, and
especially in the area of education and human resources. For NASA's
science programs, we were able to provide an increase above the budget,
but the recommended amount is still nearly $150 million below the 1998
level. And the problems with the International Space Station continue.
I am afraid our recommended cut of $170 million would have to be
restored at some point.
If the estimates of the independent Chabrow report on the station are
correct, chances are very good that even more funds than those
requested in the budget will be required. I will do my best to ensure
that the agency's science programs are not the source from which we
make up the inevitable shortfalls in the space station.
In closing, let me say once again that it has been a true pleasure to
work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, on
this bill. We do not always agree completely on every measure, but we
have been able to resolve our differences always in an amicable manner.
I want to thank him and his staff for all the courtesies and
consideration that they have extended to me. I particularly want to say
a word of thanks to Frank Cushing, the subcommittee's staff director,
and along with the chairman I want to extend my condolences to Frank
and Amy over the passing of her father.
I also want to express my appreciation of Paul Thompson, Tim
Peterson, Valerie Baldwin, Dena Baron, who is a detailee to our
subcommittee, along with Jeff Shockey and Alex Heslop on the Chairman's
personal staff. And my special thanks also to two of the members of the
minority staff who have been invaluable to me, Del Davis and David
Reich, along with Fredette West of my own congressional staff.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say again that no matter what our
differences are relative to this bill, I believe that the chairman and
I, in taking this bill to conference, will be able to work out those
differences and bring back to this House the kind of a bill that we can
all support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Joe Knollenberg), my colleague from the
committee.
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today in strong support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and I also
want to extend thanks to the ranking member, the
[[Page H5751]]
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Louis Stokes). As everybody knows, he is
retiring this year. And while he has received a number of accolades, we
continue to add to those, and I want to express mine again today. I
want to join my colleagues in wishing him a fond farewell. He served
the body well, he served his constituents well, and he will be missed.
I would also like to thank, in particular, the staff. Frank Cushing,
who, as has been mentioned, could not be here today because of his
loss. We extend our thoughts and prayers to Frank and his family. I
want to, in particular, though, thank this staff, all of them, who have
been remarkably and extraordinarily helpful in a whole lot of things,
so they deserve a lot of credit for helping us craft this bill.
This appropriation bill is unique in that it covers an array of
diverse agencies, ranging from the VA to NASA to the EPA. And it is not
easy to bring this wide range of interests together into a single bill.
However, the chairman, along with the ranking member, have done, I
think, a great job by forging a relationship that makes this all
possible.
H.R. 4194 is a good bill. However, there is one issue I would like to
stress. We have reiterated in report language our intent and
expectation that HUD will adhere to our guidance and award no funds for
insurance-related purposes, even as part of awards to groups that may
use their FHIP funds for a variety of enforcement activities. FHIP, as
everyone must know, should know, is the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program.
I further want to emphasize that the report allocates a portion of
FHIP appropriations to a nationwide audit of discrimination in housing
rentals and sales in 20 communities. Because this proposed audit is
part of the FHIP, and because its purpose is to investigate
discrimination in housing rentals and sales, there should be no
question that any of the funds allocated for it can be used to
investigate practices of property insurers. However, because HUD has,
in the past, interpreted the Fair Housing Act very liberally, I believe
it is necessary to underscore this point.
The committee report can only be understood to mean that absolutely
no funds, no FHIP funds, including those for the nationwide audit and
any awards for packages of activities by private groups, are to be
spent on activities focused on practices of property insurers or their
agents.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that as much as I would
like to support this bill, I cannot, for a number of reasons.
First of all, the Committee on Rules, in the action of this House
yesterday, made in order a totally illegitimate amendment to this bill
by adding the 300-page housing bill and authorization bill. And I want
to read my colleagues something that I just picked up on the press out
of U.S. News today.
It said that the legislation would raise the income levels of people
eligible for public housing. The bill would give greater priority to
people making as much as $40,000 to be admitted to public housing,
allowing them to gain housing before lower-income families. Since no
new public housing is being built, and existing waiting lists are years
long, these lower-income families will have no option whatsoever. A
total of 3 million low-income people would be denied access to public
and federally assisted housing, including 1.8 million seniors and
children.
It went on to quote Secretary Cuomo, HUD Secretary Cuomo, as saying
it is inexcusable that we would take the few units of affordable
housing this Congress has allowed to remain and remove it from the
grasp of the most vulnerable Americans. This means no housing for
America's most vulnerable.
I think that this Congress has no business attaching a proposal like
that to this bill.
{time} 0945
Secondly, I would point out that there are a number of funding level
problems with this bill. The brownfields program is reduced 18 percent
below the President's request. There is very broad and vague language
in the report language which relates to the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change.
I agree with those who say that we should not be taking actions to
implement any treaty before that treaty is ratified, and I would not
vote for that treaty under existing circumstances because of what it
does not require other countries, such as China, to do. It is simply
not strong enough.
But I, nonetheless, believe that the committee language is far too
broad. It even presents educational information about the issue. And I
think that that is clearly simply a favor to special interests and it
is a long-term detriment to America's public health and to the
stability of the world's economy and its climate.
I would say that this also, in my view, underfunds what we ought to
be doing with veterans' health care. And in my judgment, the reason
that we are underfunding veterans' health care, underfunding housing,
underfunding EPA, Superfund and a variety of other programs is because
we have in this bill some $31/2 billion of veterans' health care
costs which are related to the treatment of tobacco-related diseases.
And it seems to me that the taxpayer should not be paying for the
treatment of those diseases, the tobacco companies should.
Since the Committee on Rules determined it was going to make in order
an irrelevant authorization bill, I asked the Committee on Rules to
make in order a relevant authorization amendment; and that amendment
would have simply said that instead of the taxpayers being stuck with
that $31/2 billion worth of tobacco-related health treatment cost
that the tobacco companies be assessed to pay for those costs. That
would have enabled us to increase health care for veterans in this bill
by $1.7 billion and to do some other things about some of these drastic
shortfalls that will only get worse as the problems are compounded.
The Committee on Rules did not choose to do that. That means, in my
view, that this bill is essentially an inadequate bill. And until it
is, I have no intention whatsoever of voting for that.
I do not make these statements to in any way criticize the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) or the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
They have done the best they can within the allocation given them. But
the fact is that the allocation is stupid and the fact is that the
Congress is stupid if it does not find a way to require tobacco
companies to meet health care costs that the taxpayers should not be
saddled with. And until we do that, we are not going to have the
resources to meet the other needs facing this country.
It is about time that big tobacco does not have the ear of this
Congress. It is about time that big business loses the ear of this
Congress. It is about time that the public interest once again
prevails.
And, in my view, with the priorities that have been set at a higher
level than the subcommittee has the authority to do anything about,
until those priorities are changed, we should not be supporting the
outcome of those priorities.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill. And as a member
of the committee, I would like to thank the chairman the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Stokes) and their staffs for their hard work and guidance
throughout this year on a whole host of issues, and most particularly
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for his extra efforts working
with me to improve the Superfund program, which is so important to New
Jersey, and the special attention of the gentleman and our staff to
issues affecting housing for people with disabilities. Were it not for
their hard work and diligence, those two issues, to my mind, would not
be adequately addressed.
And I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not commend and
recognize the years of service of the ranking
[[Page H5752]]
member the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
My colleague served with my father in Congress when he was in
Congress and was one of the first people to welcome me to this body.
His presence in Congress, as well as his service on this committee,
will be greatly missed. I have been able to count on his expertise any
number of times. His institutional memory is amazing. And his
retirement will, without doubt, affect the committee in countless ways.
I thank the gentleman for his friendship and advice.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to briefly call to my colleagues'
attention page 11 of the committee's report and thank both the ranking
member and the chair for their agreeing to include this language.
This language highlights the problems with the Veterans
Administration's new National Formulary for drugs and medical devices.
This is a potentially explosive issue, and Members of Congress better
have it on their radar screens.
Simply put, the new VA policy is hindering proper medical treatment
of veterans by drastically limiting physicians' in the VA choice of
medicine from a list, or a formulary, that they can prescribe to treat
our veterans.
As this new policy is gradually being put into effect, doctors,
residents of our VA hospitals, and veterans organizations familiar with
the system have relayed some disturbing results. The stories I have
heard from our veterans strike right at the quality of life and care
issues, including one veteran who was forced to switch his Parkinson's
medication and, as a result, is having a recurrence of his Parkinson's
symptoms.
By putting overly restrictive limitations on which type of a medicine
a VA doctor can choose, we are severely restricting access to the
newest and most effective medications available. Unfortunately,
bureaucrats at the VA are assuming that ``one size fits all'' when it
comes to medicine. Well, one medicine does not fit all.
I urge all of my colleagues to review this language and listen to
what our veterans and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are
saying about this issue. This is a critical issue. I support this bill.
This particular issue is one that we should be concentrating on.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) the very hard working and highly
respected member of the subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time that the ranking
member has given me to make a few comments on this bill, and I rise to
generally express my satisfaction for the bill in the main.
First let me compliment our chairman the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for the quality of
their contribution to this bill. Year in and year out, through the
process of marking up this bill putting it together, these two
gentlemen, real gentleman, work extremely hard applying their very
formidable talents to coming forth with an extraordinary piece of
legislation under the circumstances that they find themselves and under
the allocations that they are given.
This is I will note, and I will have more to say on it later, the
last bill of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) the last time he will
be bringing this bill before the full House. And we are terribly
appreciative of his wonderful service over many, many years.
Every year, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
works to strike the right balance in funding what is really an eclectic
mission of vital services and programs to our people. I hope that every
Member of this House appreciates not only the difficulty of that task
but also the sense of fairness that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) bring to it. Their
conscientious approach is certainly evident in the bill that is before
us now.
And in review of it, I am especially pleased with the increased
funding for Veterans Affairs regarding medical and prosthetic research
that we are committing major resources to HUD, funding the important
Community Development Block Grant and Public Housing Operating grants,
that we are increasing money to the EPA for science and technology
research, including research on particulate matter, and that we are
giving greater resources for water assistance grants, which are so
critical to the health of our local communities.
Of course, no appropriation bill can be all things to all people.
Everyone here accepts that fact. But today we have been asked to accept
something more, and it is very unfortunate that extraneous legislation
has been made in order by the rule. Our appropriations bill is not the
place for it, and that is why I join so many of my colleagues in
opposing the rule.
But this appropriations bill is a good bill, and I look forward to
working with the chairman and ranking member in making it better by
increasing funding to underfunded programs as we move the bill through
the process.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield
21/4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for the work that they
have done on this well-rounded bill. I have a few problems with the
environmental riders, but let us put that aside for now and speak about
the positives in this bill.
First let me indicate that I want to support and identify myself with
the comments of my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen) particularly on the issue he outlined with respect to
the Veterans Administration.
I certainly say we must accept the fact that this bill contains
language concerning a time credit of $20 million to the Veterans'
Integrated Service network. And that is what is needed, particularly in
New Jersey and for the northeast.
There are certifiable needs throughout New Jersey, from East Orange
and the Lyon's facility and throughout other veterans hospitals in the
region. And I certainly call upon the Secretary of the VA to act
immediately on the committee's direction after this bill is signed into
law.
But let me give a little more time to the subject of the FHA single-
family mortgage issue. I want to rise in strong support of this
subject. It is strongly needed. The increase in the FHA loan limit is
an issue that we have long supported on the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I have worked together
to urge attention of the committee to this issue. And certainly, there
is nothing that is more representative of the American dream than the
64-year history of the FHA single-family insurance program.
And particularly, as a representative from New Jersey, I want to
point out that in states like New Jersey, but not exclusively New
Jersey, where loan prices are traditionally higher than in other parts
of the country, the increase is fundamental if the FHA loan program is
to be a viable one. We need this increase urgently, it is overdue. And
I thank the committee for their intelligent and far-reaching, far-
searching work on this issue.
I want to commend the Committee for its work on what I consider to be
a well-rounded bill. While I do have reservations on several of the so-
called ``environmental riders'', included in this legislation, I want
to rise in strong support of the provisions to increase the FHA single-
family mortgage insurance limit. In addition to it being good public
policy, the revenues raised by this measure are being put toward
necessary programs--$10 million in needed medical research for disabled
veterans, and $70 million of the National Science Foundation which will
be used by colleges and universities, like Rutgers and Princeton in my
own state New Jersey, to help educate our next generation of
scientists.
The increase in the FHA loan limit is an issue that I have long
supported. For a state like New Jersey this increase is key. I worked
with Congressman McCollum to gather signatures on a letter to Chairman
Lewis and Ranking Minority Member Lewis Stokes urging that this
provision be included in the VA/HUD bill.
Throughout its 64-year history, the FHA single family insurance has
enabled millions of American families to achieve the dream of home
ownership The American Dream at no cost to taxpayers. It has provided
countless home ownership opportunities to millions of
[[Page H5753]]
deserving families who were denied or deprived of owning a home through
the conventional market. The FHA program has also generated significant
revenue benefiting the U.S. Treasury and helped stimulate our nation's
economy through housing and neighborhood development.
Yet, FHA's effectiveness is limited because its loan limits have not
been allowed to keep pace with market development and changes. Many
families have been denied home ownership opportunities because the
arbitrary constraints on the maximum mortgage amount prevent FHA from
reaching many moderate-income families. In States like New Jersey where
home prices are traditionally higher than in other parts of the
country, the increase is fundamental if the FHA loan program is to be
viable.
Under the measure included in the committee-reported bill, the
general limit on FHA loans would be increased from $86,317 to $109,032
(i.e. from 38% to 48% of the Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac ``conforming''
loan limit), while the limit on FHA loans in high-cost areas from
$170,362 to $197,620 (i.e. from 75% to 87% of conforming loan limit).
The Administration had requested that FHA loan limits be raised to be a
nationwide ceiling of $227,150. The provisions included in this bill
represent a fair common sense compromise that will provide a measure of
fairness to American consumers residing in under served markets, and
generate $80 million in additional revenues.
Home ownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream. This FHA
loan-limit increase proposal included in the bill helps to further that
dream for many hard-working Americans who reside in those markets that
are currently under served.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on an issue that is vital to the
veterans of New Jersey and the Northeast.
This bill contains language that urges the Veterans Administration to
provide for a one time credit of $20 million to the Veterans Integrated
Service Network (VISN) Three, which serves veterans of New Jersey and
the Northeast. This language is right and fair.
A General Accounting Office (GAO) revealed that the Network 3
Director, James Farsetta, returned $20 million for the Fiscal Year 1997
budget to the Veterans Administration national offices in Washington.
According to the GAO, the Network 3 Director found ``no prudent use''
for these funds. Frankly, with all the funding cutbacks already
negatively impacting the justifiable health care needs of the veterans
of Network 3, I strongly believe that there are many prudent ways this
money could be spent.
At the same time this money was returned to Washington, my office had
numerous certifiable complaints from the East Orange and Lyons
facilities. Most recently, a patient at Lyons Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, which mainly serves psychiatric patients, was found dead after
wandering off site unsupervised. He was missing for three days and
found only 150 feet from the Hospital's administration building. It is
interesting to note that due to funding restraints, New Jersey's VA
hospitals have eliminated over 240 jobs. It is obvious to me that the
$20 million could have been spent in many prudent ways.
The implementation of the VA's new funding formula known as Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) has negatively impacted funding of
veterans' health care in New Jersey and the northeastern United States.
New Jersey and the Northeast will lose millions of dollars over the
next three years.
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 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 cutbacks on top of the $20 million giveaway,
there has been an erosion of confidence between veterans and the VA.
This erosion threatens to destroy the solemn commitment that this
Nation made to its veterans when they were called to duty.
I call on the Secretary of the VA to act immediately on the
Committee's direction after this bill is signed into law.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) has 113/4
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) has 131/2
minutes remaining.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) another very distinguished member
of our subcommittee and an extremely hard-working lady.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and
admired member and leader the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and I
want to thank my chairman, who has been both fair and efficient in this
bill. And I am urging being the Congress to pass this VA-HUD bill.
It was the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who said that Congress
is to define problems and differences and to devise solutions to these
problems. I think that is the way the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies worked to do this. They were not able in many
instances to solve all the problems, but they did try to find solutions
to many of them. And I want to commend our committee for that.
There are some things in the bill that I would like to go have seen
to have appropriated more money to do the good things that we started
some time ago, and one of them was the Corporation for National and
Community Services. Another one is housing. And I think the committee
addressed housing in a good way. But of course, the more housing
vouchers we can receive in poor communities, the better it will be.
So I appreciate the committee addressing the housing voucher
situation and raising that level. And I repeat, I would have liked to
have seen more.
I would also like to see our committee continue in its direction to
improve the environment, not to cut back with drastic reduction, but to
continue to provide those assistance that we so desperately need.
{time} 1000
One of my other major concerns to the committee is that the Economic
Development Initiative, which has helped so many of us in cities where
we have so many poor people being helped by government, providing jobs,
doing the kinds of things that good job creation can do, I want to
commend the committee for looking at that, but we did not go far enough
in providing enough money for the economic development initiative to
take care of the cities.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), a member of the
committee, for a colloquy.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the
subcommittee, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
to enter into a colloquy to clarify report language in this bill
pertaining to a rulemaking being considered by the EPA.
As my colleague knows, report language in this bill addresses the
security risks associated with making risk management plan data
available on the Internet under an EPA rulemaking according to section
112(r) of the Clean Air Act. Members of our committee have heard from
many members of their community who expressed concern that making this
information available to the public via the Internet could have grave
consequences. This type of data, which is already available to relevant
businesses and public safety and law enforcement officers, could result
in mass destruction in the hands of those intent on doing harm. These
security concerns have been echoed by law enforcement and national
intelligence representatives in discussions with the EPA. However, the
EPA has been unable to adequately address the national security
concerns that have been raised.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that discussions between
representative law enforcement, the intelligence community and the EPA
are ongoing and that a resolution of this issue will occur by the end
of this year.
Would the gentleman agree that this is an accurate statement?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, the EPA has been working closely with
FBI and other law enforcement and security experts to develop a system
limiting inappropriate access to such information. That system is
expected to be completed by the end of 1998 as the committee expects to
be updated on a monthly basis on the progress and development of
security protocol.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, when will the agency actually implement the
protocol?
Mr. LEWIS of California. The agency must include a formal protocol
proposal as part of their fiscal year 1999 operations plan before
implementing any security protocol.
Mr. HOBSON. Thank the gentleman from California for his
clarification. I
[[Page H5754]]
think we both agree that this issue is one of vital importance to our
communities and law enforcement officials, and I appreciate the
gentleman's assistance in this matter.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I would just like to take this
moment to thank a member of my staff who has worked on this. She has
been with me for 7 years. Jennifer Cutcher is leaving to get married
and move to Florida, and we are sorry to lose her in our office.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time she
might consume, within limits, to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to an item that is
contained in the other body's VA-HUD appropriations bill. It is my
understanding that the other body has allowed $7 million for the water
systems improvement project in the village of Hempstead, New York. I
say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) this program is very
important to a large number of my constituents. I would be interested
in knowing if the gentleman will give consideration in conference to
accepting this project?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. McCarthy), as we have discussed personally and in many a
way she has attempted to bring this item to my attention, it indeed is
our intention to address this question in the conference. We are going
to do everything we can to not only recognize the importance but to
assist the gentlewoman and her district as well.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I want to, at the onset, recognize the
service of our distinguished colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) who has
so ably led this subcommittee as initially chairman, first as a Member,
of course, and finally now as ranking member. I think that his steady
hand and intellect, keen intellect, and efforts have really done a
remarkable job in terms of trying to deal with some of the neediest in
our Nation. I am most familiar, of course, with his work on housing and
our mutual interest in homelessness and other issues.
But, Mr. Chairman, just speaking to the merits of this briefly, I
wanted to express my concerns about some of the fundamental problems
with the bill that we have before us. Regrettably, we have serious
problems, but it seems as though, notwithstanding positive revenue
projections that continue to buoy our economy, that none of the benefit
of that positive economy are translating into some of the essential
programs that we should have, and this bill even falls short of the
budget agreement that was written just last year with regards to some
of the agreements on environmental expenditures.
I am very concerned about the attacks on the environment and the
riders in this bill. I am concerned about the political game that is
going on with regards to providing zero funding for AmeriCorps. I am
concerned about the continued expenditure of billions of dollars on the
space station, notwithstanding the fact that commitments year after
year are not met. I am concerned about the fact that it is written in
such a way as to cause these problems. And the fact is, if this were
not enough, now we are going to pile onto this bill unrelated riders on
bills such as the abolishment of some of the public housing
responsibilities that the national government has committed to for the
past fifty years.
Therefore, I rise to express my concerns and point out some
fundamental problems in the VA-HUD Appropriations bill for FY 1999.
Once again, the Republican led Appropriations Committee has provided an
uneven product within sufficient resources to meet the needs identified
by the Administration, the Congress and the American people. This bill
has several serious flaws: it underfunds veterans medical care; attacks
our natural resources and environment; abandons the Administration's
AmeriCorps program and includes continued funding for a budget busting
international space station that will cost American taxpayers more than
$100 billion in the final form. In its current state as written, this
bill has ensured a collision course with the Senate, House Democrats
and the President, but the intended amendment and design crafted by the
rule will further warp the measure beyond reason, taking on more
controversy and a further blow to this measures unbalance.
The VA-HUD bill appropriates a total of $42.3 billion for VA programs
and benefits. Unfortunately, this bill underfunds veterans medical
care. The report language states that the Committee has provided an
increase for medical care to maintain the 1998 level. While technically
true at the amount level, this is accomplished only by reducing funding
for VA construction activities and projects by 20% less than current
funding levels. Discounting this artifice, the total amount provided
for veterans medical care is $276 million less than the 1998 level.
According to the Independent Budget issued by major veteran service
organizations, the Committee's recommendation is $525 million below the
1999 current service level, and nearly $1.8 billion below their
recommended 1999 funding amount.
The funding levels for the housing and community development programs
in the VA-HUD bill, are satisfactory compared to 1998. The bill
allocates $26.5 billion for HUD programs, an increase from FY 1998. The
measure increases funding for the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act
programs and with the inclusion of $100 million in new funds for
incremental vouchers. Frankly, given the tremendous need for housing
assistance that exists across this country, we could have used the
entire Administration's request in incremental, or new, section 8
assistance. Given the fact the we have not received incremental funding
for many years, however, this is a positive first step in recognizing
the severity of the need. This urgent need would argue for the
elimination of the provision in this measure which requires a three-
month delay in re-issuance of section 8 housing vouchers and
certificates. There is no public policy reason and only budget cost
scoring behind this 3 month delay provision. It hopefully will be
dropped before it becomes law and we will provide dollars without
shift.
I am also very supportive of the changes to the FHA loan limit an
authorization matter with little to do with the appropriation, no doubt
bouyed by the positive CBO scoring. Increases in the floor and the
ceiling of the FHA loan limit will make a more viable FHA program
because it will achieve market relevance. The increase in the ceiling
to 87% of the conforming loan limit will help middle income home buyers
in the high cost areas purchase homes. The 48% of the conforming loan
limit for the FHA floor is approximately what the level was in an
amendment I offered in the 1994 Housing Reauthorization bill. It's been
to long a wait for action on FHA modernization. These changes are
critically important to many, many areas of the country because the
current floor, which serves as the minimum has not been high enough to
cover the real costs of building a new home in most regions of the
nation for a long time. The bill also makes a positive change that
should help deal with disparities in limits in geographically
contiguous areas.
I strongly oppose the amendment that will be offered by Mr. Lazio to
this bill later today. His amendment would attach a reworked public
housing measure, H.R. 2, to the appropriations bill. This remains a
faulty policy and is potentially quite harmful to most communities.
Attachment to the appropriations bill is short-sighted simply and an
end run of a controversial bill around the process which could
potentially stall the important HUD appropriations bill for FY99. This
fundamental change being superimposed upon this bill should be
considered upon its merits rather than placed upon a must enact funding
measure.
In offering this amendment, and indeed protecting it under the rule
from points of order, this House majority will be disrupting ongoing,
bi-partisan negotiations to resolve major differences between H.R. 2
and its Senate counterpart, S. 462 attempting to gloss over legitimate
policy differences on income targeting, ``home rule'' deregulations,
minimum rents and other issues. While that process has not been in an
actual House/Senate Conference, as it well should be, at least there
have been ongoing discussions. This appropriations slam dunk will
completely undermine that process. I urge opposition to the Lazio
amendment, which will undercut the role of the authorizing committee
and which could effectively jeopardize, for no legitimate reason, the
progress being made by the positive HUD funding in this bill. I would
suggest that the inclusion of the public housing controversy into the
VA-HUD bill could be the last straw on the camel's back for many
members trying to decide whether to support this appropriations bill.
[[Page H5755]]
I also want to note that I have filed several amendments to the HUD-
VA bill. Two amendments would provide an additional $30 million to the
highly successful, yet consistently under funded Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter program. I don't
intend to offer both but intend to discuss one. The charities that work
in partnership with the FEMA program continue to be overloaded. Demand
for food and shelter is rising and the funding level of EFS has, to say
the least, not kept pace with the need.
The other amendment that I have filed would set in law a requirement
that owners who intend to prepay their mortgage on low-income
multifamily housing properties would have to provide one year notice to
the local jurisdictions and to the tenants of those buildings, whose
lives are being totally disrupted by such action. It is a reasonable
amendment and one I hope this body will see fit to accept.
I note that the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI)
fund has been allocated $80 million. I am working with my Chairwoman,
Mrs. Roukema, in the Banking Committee in the Financial Institutions
Subcommittee on reauthorizing this program. We are making improvements,
as the CDFI management has, in response to some of the concerns brought
out over the last year or so. I think we will have a stronger, more
viable CDFI as a result of those actions and that this program which
can have such a positive impact in communities, indeed justifies a
solid appropriation.
Disappointingly, this bill lacks adequate funding for much needed
environmental cleanup and natural resources conservation. Specifically,
$1.5 billion is included for the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Superfund program. This amount is $650 million below the budget
request and the level agreed to in last year's balanced budget
agreement. As a result, numerous contaminated toxic waste sites
throughout the country, including specific sites in my district in
Minnesota, will remain hazardous to people's health. In addition, the
popular and successful Brownfields program is reduced 18 percent below
the Administration's request. For the second straight year, the
Committee has limited the Brownfields program to assessments; no
funding is available for toxic waste site cleanup. According to a
report issued by the U.S. Conference of Mayors earlier this year:
``Cities participating in the study identified several major obstacles
to the redevelopment of Brownfields. Cities ranked the lack of clean up
funds as the number one impediment.'' This is certainly not the time to
turn our backs on cleaning up toxic waste in our local communities who
desperately need Federal assistance.
The Committee funded the Administration's Climate Change Technology
Initiative at $99 million. This amount is less than one-half of the
$205 million requested. Furthermore, the Leadership included vague
language that limits the use of funds regarding activities related to
the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Specifically, this bill attempts
to prohibit the use of funds in the act to ``develop, propose, or issue
rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementing,
or in contemplation of implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol. Under
existing statutory authorities, the EPA has ongoing activities to
develop and issue regulations that would be affected by the Kyoto
provisions. Proponents of the provisions argue that this language
prohibits the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until ratification
of a treaty by the Senate. However, I disagree. These provisions could
well restrict the United States from playing a leadership role in the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as they at least undercut the EPA
moral leadership. Furthermore, the Committee report also balks at EPA's
efforts to promote educational outreach and further research on the
policies underlying the Kyoto Protocol until or unless the Protocol is
ratified by the Senate. This clearly illustrates that the congressional
leadership is indifferent to our environmental stewardship
responsibilities in this Nation.
As reported, the bill contains no funding for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, or AmeriCorps. This lack of language
will terminate the programs. This continued effort by the House
Republican Majority to eliminate the Administration's national service
program will ensure confrontation with the Senate, who supports the
program firmly, and the Administration. The Administration had made its
support of AmeriCorps abundantly clear. Despite this, the Republican
leaders once again have elected to support a charade of cutting or
eliminating AmeriCorps funds in the House knowing the conference
agreement with the Senate will restore them.
Furthermore, this bill appropriates $2.1 billion for continued
development of the international space station. According to some of
the most qualified scientists in America, the international space
station has little or no scientific value and the American people will
gain almost nothing except for the experience of wasting billions on
building a space station in orbit. Congress should not invest another
penny in this immensely overbudget and overdue program. This is money
that can be used to strengthen our National Parks, reinvest in our
children's education, provide adequate health care to our Nation's
veterans and restore pre-1995 rescission level funding for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter
Program.
Overall, this legislation meets some of the needs of our Nation's
veterans and makes a good first step in the right direction for low-
income housing programs. However, I agree with the Administration that
this legislation is highly flawed in its attacks upon environmental
cleanup, elimination of the successful AmeriCorps program and a budget
busting international space station. I urge all Members to vote no on
this measure.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional requests
for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for
putting together a very reasonable piece of legislation. However, I
have one concern which I want to bring to the floor.
The $16 billion upholstery manufacture industry will receive an early
Christmas present this year, Mr. Chairman. The industry is laughing its
way to the bank. Thousands of Americans might die in house fires. They
will be burnt to death because the industry spent thousands of dollars
lobbying against a national upholstery flammability standard. This
absolves the industry from responsibility and preventing their products
from literally going up in smoke.
Thirty-seven hundred people a year are killed by house fires. One
thousand of them are children, twice as likely to die in a fire than
adults. An additional 1,700 youngsters are injured due to residential
fires. This bill blocks the progress that the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has made in the development of an upholstered furniture
flammability standard. This provision not only delays the project but
is totally redundant, provides no further benefit to the American
public.
Upholstered furniture fires are the number one fire hazard in this
country, yet we are still waiting for flammability standards, and while
we wait over 25,000 men, women and children have died as a result of
burning furniture. The Consumer Product Safety Commission calculates
that an upholstery flammability standards will have an annual net
savings of $300 million. This $300 million will go directly to American
taxpayers because their local fire departments will not be called to
extinguish as many residential fires.
Prevention of fires is not just a noteworthy goal. Flammability
standards are attainable, they are cost effective, and they make sense.
We already require institutions such as hospitals and prisons to
purchase flame-retardant furniture. Are we saying that we are more
interested in protecting prisoners from upholstery fires than our
children?
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for all the
work he has done over so many years on important issues, particularly
on his pro-environmental stance.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of my concerns over the anti-
environmental riders in this bill. As in years past, the Republican
majority has once again inserted a number of anti-environmental riders
into the bill and its accompanying r
