Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 19, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4613-H4641] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1610 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of Representatives the bill, H.R. 4635, making fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and independent agencies. So that we can move quickly, I will keep my comments brief. First, let me just thank the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his advice and counsel throughout this discussion. Even though we have different political persuasions, I think we share almost all of the same priorities in this bill, which makes it, as one might imagine, much less difficult to bring a bill to the floor. We do not agree on everything obviously, but I think in most cases we do. So we have enjoyed the benefit of his advice and the staffs have worked very closely together. The subcommittee and the full committee worked very hard to bring this bill out. Like most of the appropriations subcommittees, we were given a very tight 302(b) allocation. Nevertheless, we were able to make what I think are good policy and funding choices to produce a good, fair bill that deserves support. Here are some of the highlights: this bill fully funds veterans medical care [[Page H4614]] with a $1.355 billion increase over last year's record level. Last year, we increased it $1.7 billion, $1.355 billion this year for a total of over $3 billion increase in 2 years. I think that shows how important this subcommittee, this full committee, and the House take our commitments to our veterans. It provides full funding for medical research, major construction, and cemetery administration operations. Just as important, we have begun an effort to conduct better oversight of how much medical care funding goes for medical care, per se, and how much goes to maintaining buildings and facilities. All veterans, no matter where they are located, deserve the best facilities that we can offer. We have also included language to make sure that veterans medical receipts stay within the VA system and do not go to the Treasury as was suggested by the Administration. Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are fully funded, and we have included language to push the Department to do a better, faster job of getting funds out of Washington to the people who need them most. HUD's record in this regard is not one to be proud of. We had 247,000 section 8 vouchers go begging last year because HUD did not get the job done. So we have accounted for that and still have fully funded the section 8 requirements. We have essentially level funded the Community Development Block Grant entitlement programs, trimming them by less than 1 percent. We have level funded or only slightly reduced most other HUD programs, making sure that HUD was not using the bank to pay for other programs as it did last year. AmeriCorps has been zeroed out. I am sure that will be a topic for discussion in conference and in consultation with the White House. In this bill, there is no funding. EPA's operating programs have been level funded while various State grant programs, which assist the States in implementing Federal laws, have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, gutted in the President's budget request, has been restored to $1.2 billion. That is real commitment on the part of Congress to support cleaner water and to improve the environment of this country, an area where I think the Administration is sorely lacking, while State and local air grants from section 319 non-point source pollution grants have been increased significantly. Perhaps most important, we have proposed $245 million, more than double last year's level and $85 million more than the Administration's request, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer the States the maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL issues facing the States. To help the States deal with the MTBE problems caused by leaking underground storage tank facilities, that is a gasoline additive that has recently been banned by the EPA, we have upped the account at EPA by $9 million over last year and $7 million over the budget request. CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been proposed for an increase over last year's funding level. They are doing a good job. They deserve our support; we provided it. {time} 1615 Likewise, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, perhaps the most productive and most efficient Federal organization dealing with housing, has been provided their full funding level of $90 million. Again, they have earned and deserve our support. We should reward positive performance. The National Science Foundation has received an increase of $167 million over last year's level, putting them over $4 billion, their largest funding level ever. Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of $113 million, their first increase in several years. Mr. Chairman, there is one point regarding this bill that really needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we faced a tight allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that this bill received an allocation that is nearly $5 billion above last year. I would like to try to set the record straight. The reality is that our new allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is that CBO's freeze level for this budget was $76.9 billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just $1.1 billion over last year. I hasten to add that that increase has been totally absorbed by VA medical care, $1.355 billion over last year, a Section 8 housing increase of nearly $2 billion, and increases provided for National Science Foundation and NASA over last year's level. Nearly every other program in this bill was either level funded or reduced slightly so that we could meet these necessary increases and still stay within our allocation. I have to say that it would be very difficult to get this bill this far without the support and assistance of my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the rest of this hard- working subcommittee and our staffs, and we have wonderful staffs. While we do not always agree on every issue, every effort has been made on both sides to continue the subcommittee's strong history of bipartisan cooperation in the crafting of this bill. I truly appreciate the gentleman's help and close working relationship. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill. It is a good fair bill, with solid policy direction, while staying completely within our budget authority and outlay allocations. I strongly encourage the support of this body in moving this measure forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process. Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt. The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8 housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill, the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities. We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill reflects, missed a lot of opportunities. Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential veto. Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508 million less than that requested by the President for the National Science Foundation. Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and reduce the cost of access to space. Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development Block Grants and public housing below the current year level. And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters. The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more resources for medical [[Page H4615]] research at the Veterans Administration or for construction of State- needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why are we not doing more to expand the supply of affordable housing and helping our Nation's homeless? Why are we not doing more for environmental restoration and protection? And why are we not doing more to explore space and perform the basic scientific research that is directly responsible for our current economic boom? We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided, instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong last year, and it is wrong now. Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however, we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the question of why we go through this exercise at all. I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However, I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do. This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when will we? During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas. Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation. No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I believe that this process should move forward. It is also important that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members. The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect to see something markedly different than what we have before us today. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among a number of Federal agencies under our committee's jurisdiction. Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so many national and regional priorities within a limited budget allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds, $4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year. That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8 renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies, homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, known as HOPA. This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's long overdue request for this purpose. Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75 percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing units. The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases. {time} 1630 The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year. Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials in many waste sites around the country that have been abandoned. As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of costly, protracted lawsuits. The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE. During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive. While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country. California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500, New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected adversely. As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill [[Page H4616]] builds upon that decision by providing $9 million for efforts to correct leaking underground storage tank problems associated with this additive. Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year. It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4- billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of national science and engineering in every State and institution of higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth. I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of the committee. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a debate or part of the debate about our national priorities and our national values and it helps decide who we are going to put first in this society. This Congress has committed itself to pass a large number of very large tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts are aimed at the most well- off people in our society. The wealthiest 2 percent will get a huge percentage of those tax cuts. And our ability to afford those tax cuts is based on the assumption by the majority that over the next few years we will cut $125 billion below current services, below existing purchasing power levels, a whole host of programs: education programs, health programs, housing programs, land acquisition programs, science programs, all the rest. That is really what this debate is all about. Because this is one of the appropriation bills that is cut by a large amount below the President's budget in order to pretend that we can squeeze out enough room for those huge tax cuts aimed at the most well-off people in this society. And I do not believe we ought to do that. I think we need to look at this budget in terms of what we need 10 years from now because this is a growing society, it is a growing population. We have growing needs, we are going to have more people who need housing, we are going to have more people in high schools, we are going to have more people in college, we are going to have more needs, and these bills are not responding to them. Some examples of that lack of response are as follows: As has been indicated, the distinguished chairman has done the best he can given the budget ceiling which was assigned to his subcommittee and this bill does contain a welcome $1.35 billion increase for veterans' medical care. It is about time that both parties get off their duff on that. But it fails to adequately provide for several other priorities for veterans. It does freeze funds for veterans' medical and prosthetic research. It cuts grants for construction of State veterans homes one-third below current year levels and does some other things that we are not happy about. It needlessly creates a political confrontation with the President by terminating the Corporation for National and Community Service, including the AmeriCorps program. Everyone on this floor knows the President is not going to sign this bill with that provision. For housing, it appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the administration. It cuts Community Development Block Grants $276 million below the current year level and $395 million below the President's request. It freezes funding for homeless assistance. It provides a number of other cuts on the environmental front and on the NASA front. I happen to believe the most serious cut of all in terms of our long- term economic health is what this bill does to the National Science Foundation because it falls short of the President's request by $508 billion. And I think it is essential to understand that the National Science Foundation does much of the basic scientific research, upon which all our other technological and medical progress is based. We have had economists estimate that at least half of our economic productivity in the past 50 years can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported that innovation. And yet, this bill is a giant missed opportunity because it cuts the President's budget with respect to that program. It falls $508 million below the President's request. And then, in addition, it takes actions which, in concert with other actions taken by other subcommittees, slowly but surely fences in the Justice Department so that neither they nor any other agency of Government can mount an effective lawsuit against the tobacco companies for lying through their teeth to the American people for the past 40 years about whether or not their product caused cancer. And so, the Government has shelled out billions of dollars in Medicare, in veterans' health costs to deal with health consequences of that product and the lying selling of that product to the American people. And I think that needs to be corrected. So these are a number of reasons why, although I have profound respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and consider him to be one of the finest people in this institution, I cannot support the work product that the budget resolution has forced him to come up with. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding on my behalf, and I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for all the great effort and the great work that he has done as chairman of this subcommittee. I want to thank, also, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has teamed up with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to make this thing work. I want to further thank the staff, led by Frank Cushing, for all the great efforts that they have made on this legislation. It is not easy, and I know that; and most people do not know how much time staff puts into the effort that brings forth a bill. This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. And there is a lot of distance in between. It is not an easy task to bring this wide range of interest into a single bill. However, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have a working relationship that I think makes this all possible. H.R. 4635 is a good bill and keeps us within the budget resolution. I would point out that the product before us contains, as undoubtedly has been commented on, no Member earmarks. In this respect, it is eminently fair because there are no winners or losers. The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation produced under very difficult circumstances and is within, again, the budget resolution. It responsibly provides a $1.3-billion increase for veterans' medical health care, fully funds section 8 housing, and provides sound investments in research-intensive agencies, such as NASA and, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) just mentioned, the National Science Foundation. As this process moves forward, there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the President finally signs the bill. I would implore my colleagues not to let perfection be the enemy of good. This is a good and responsible bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it. Again, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted for crafting this piece of legislation under these circumstances. He has worked in good faith with the ranking member on the other side in a bipartisan spirit to form a bill that the House has now before it. My colleagues, this is a fair bill and there will be time to strengthen it further as the process moves along. So I urge its support. [[Page H4617]] Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I speak today on one part of the bill before us, title I, the bill funding the Department of Administration, and I speak as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in this House. Now, all of us on this side of the aisle have spoken of our deep respect for the chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but we also have taken issue with the sense that we are doing all we can do in this bill, in this case for our Nation's veterans. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks in a passive sense that we have been allocated a number. This is an active decision by this House to allocate certain figures, and this House can do what it will with regard to the budget. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, we have spoken about our priorities. This budget ranks veterans' affairs, I am afraid, very low in the priorities. The chair said that this is fully funded, medical care for our veterans is fully funded. I am not sure what that means, but I would challenge my colleagues to go to any town hall meeting of veterans in this Nation and tell them that their benefits and their health care is fully funded. The gentleman from Michigan said this is a good and responsible budget. I take issue. It is not a good budget. It is an irresponsible budget. We are reneging on our commitment to our Nation's veterans, Mr. Speaker. We have asked our veterans to sacrifice in war. When we had deficits, we asked our veterans to take cuts because we had to share the sacrifice of cutting those deficits. But now that we have surpluses, it is time to make up on those commitments and start fulfilling those commitments. Many of our national cemeteries are a national disgrace. The waiting list for our veterans to see medical specialists goes months and months and months to get adjudication. Their benefits claims may take years. This is not a good and responsible budget. We are falling behind, Mr. Speaker, on medical research for veterans. We are falling behind on our commitment to fund our State veterans' homes. We are falling behind on helping our homeless veterans. We are falling behind on providing educational benefits to those veterans. {time} 1645 The Montgomery GI bill is almost worthless in terms of its spending power in today's market. I am going to submit amendments, Mr. Chairman, to cover some of these shortcomings, but I want to speak on a couple now. We are not adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who served in the Gulf War and who now suffer from various diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years, Mr. Chairman, since the men and women of our Armed Forces were sent to the gulf, yet they do not know what caused their illness, and we have no treatment for it. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and appropriate research. This budget does virtually nothing for those veterans. I speak today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Independent Budget, a budget that was propounded by a coalition of all the veterans organizations in this Nation. It is a responsible, professional budget. They show that this budget falls behind on our commitment by a minimum of $1.5 billion. It points out that as our veteran population ages, the need for long-term care increases. One means of providing that is through our funding of State veterans homes. In fact, a new home just opened in my congressional district; and already there is a waiting list of hundreds and hundreds. Other areas should have the same opportunity as the veterans in my San Diego region with the opening of this new home. Yet this budget has a decrease in funding for State homes. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's veterans require an educational benefit that will actually allow them to attend college. I will propose such an amendment when the time comes. We have fallen behind on trying to deal with our homeless veterans. Thirty to 40 percent of those on the street are veterans. This is no way to treat those who served for us. We should increase that. This budget does not. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of people in this Nation who served during World War II and were drafted into Armed Forces, Filipino veterans who helped us win the war in the Pacific. They are in their 70s and 80s. We need to provide them the health care that was taken away by this Congress more than 50 years ago. $30 million is all that is required to provide this health care. I will submit an amendment to do just that. Mr. Chairman, we are falling farther and farther behind with this budget. It is time to reverse our priorities. It is time to recognize the heroism and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Let us truly fully fund this budget. Let us truly make this a good and responsible budget. Let us do better for our Nation's veterans. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to discuss some of the issues that were just raised. I will be brief. I am not going to fight every battle and counter every argument, but I do think it needs to be said that we are not falling behind. We are not falling behind in our commitments to our veterans. In fact, the strides that this Congress has made in the last 2 years, $1.7 billion last year, almost $1.4 billion this year, that is over a $3 billion commitment in a $20 billion health care allocation. That is a profound commitment to our veterans. I do not believe any Congress in the recent or distant past has made that sort of commitment. I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we are falling behind. If anything, we are quickly catching up if not pulling ahead. But to say we are falling behind, I think, gives grist for the mill for those uninformed people out there who are saying we are not keeping our commitments to the veteran. I strongly disagree. On the issue of the G.I. Bill, those benefits are mandatory. The gentleman sits on the committee of authorization. That is where that issue belongs, not here in the committee on appropriations. Those are mandatory benefits, not within our purview to determine allocation of funds. It is mandatory. Lastly, the GAO study says that the Veterans Administration is wasting $1 million a day through poor administration. That is over $300 million a year wasted. We cannot afford to have that waste continue. Clearly, the Congress can do better; but the administration can, too. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking. Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and saved this [[Page H4618]] country from various battles across the history of our country. But it is not funded properly. In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in our country who have served this country well. I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in America, the least of these who find themselves living in public housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7 billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met. The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district, and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime, free from other kinds of negative things in our budget. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets. There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress. I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening, let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak out for them. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) because I think they probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs, this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nation's capabilities in science and engineering research and education. The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million. This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the House. It also ignores the well-known connection between research and economic development. I characterize the bill as shortsighted because it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the well- being of our citizens. Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported it. The social rate of return for basic research performed at academic institutions has been found to be at least 28 percent. Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent example of the Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The most important is also the least quantifiable, that is, the lost opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued. Last year alone, the National Science Foundation could not fund 3,800 proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. The budget increase requested for fiscal year 2001 has greatly reduced the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposal was designated for the core research programs of the foundation. This new funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative value of National Science Foundation awards, thereby adding to the overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is, researchers must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding for their research projects. If NSF were to be allowed to reach its goal of increasing average grant size to $108,000 and grant duration to 3 years, it estimates the savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50 million. Of course, this is only a portion of the potential savings since it does not include reductions in the time for proposal reviews and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few grants. Overall, the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will result in more than 4,000 fewer awards for state-of-the-art research and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as information technology, the nanoscale science and engineering, and environmental research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society. The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18,000 fewer researchers, educators, and students receiving NSF support. This is a direct, and negative, effect on the shortages projected in the high- tech workforce. It will reduce the number of well-trained scientists and engineers needed for the Nation's future. Finally, I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many Members of this House in the development and widespread use of information technology. In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among seven agencies for information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multi- agency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources. H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSF's part of this initiative by over $154 million, or by more than 20 percent. The need for the major new investment in information technology research was advocated by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: ``Unless immediate steps are taken to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area, we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of economic progress over the coming decades.'' I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for the research that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials, environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent industries. The economic growth that has been fueled by advances in basic research will be endangered because of the failure of this bill to provide adequate resources for the math, science, and engineering research and education activities of the National Science Foundation. This is shameful and irresponsible. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along, that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget within the VA [[Page H4619]] system. The President's budget proposed that the first $350 million collected as a result of changes under the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act signed into law and passed last year be returned to the Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration. {time} 1700 This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with the Vietnam-Era part of our history. In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However, during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand was not there. Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey, the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the national average. The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and this is a budget that points us in the right direction. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect, $200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless, the judgment of this House. In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of that industry. Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a couple of weeks we will have given $200 billion to 400 families by eliminating the estate tax, and we will refuse to bring in potentially $300 billion that can be used for veterans' health, Indian health services, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, so many things where we are always saying we do not have the money to fund it. The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times over that amount back to the veterans' health program. Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued. They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the groups want this lawsuit to go forward. Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke. They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking. I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments, that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will hear more about it later. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 30 seconds remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right to close. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, many requests that would be more than 30 seconds; and, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD. Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase in NSF funding. Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments to make. I think we can conclude our general debate and move into amendments. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record. [[Page H4620]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.001 [[Page H4621]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.002 [[Page H4622]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.003 [[Page H4623]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.004 [[Page H4624]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.005 [[Page H4625]] Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to highlight several features of this legislation that are important to our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's reformulated gasoline mandate. national science foundation Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17, 2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level. While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million, NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level requested, especially given the large increases planned for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Indeed, I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical research be more widely recognized. Today, we are in the midst of one of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes much to technological changes driven by the basic scientific research conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research supported by NSF. Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and computational sciences as the biological sciences. I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular area or areas relative to other.'' If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area, I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs. national aeronautics and space administration While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714 billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year. I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully answered. As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of risk. Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to move our space program to the next level of achievement. The Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate safeguards to protect the federal investment. I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that goal because I believe the program is important. EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost, potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage. Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel, have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any impact on improving air quality. Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers, and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near. EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions on this issue. Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. H.R. 4635, which we are considering today is woefully inadequate and fails to address America's needs in housing, economic development, veterans, and science and technology programs. This is particularly distressing in these times of unprecedented prosperity and rising surpluses. Among many unacceptable funding provisions, the bill freezes funding for veterans medical research, cuts grants for construction of state veterans homes $30 million below the current year level, and provides $56 million less than requested to improve processing of applications for benefits. The bill appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the Administration. Further, it cuts the Community Development Block Grant by $275 million below the current year level. And while it provides an increase for research at the National Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's requested increased by $508 million. The bill also fails to adequately provide for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science and Technology programs, which the bill underfunds by $323 million. These cuts I believe would jeopardize the future of our space research programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our universe. Even more distressing, the bill only appropriates $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested by the Administration for the Federal Emergency Man

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 19, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4613-H4641] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1610 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of Representatives the bill, H.R. 4635, making fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and independent agencies. So that we can move quickly, I will keep my comments brief. First, let me just thank the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his advice and counsel throughout this discussion. Even though we have different political persuasions, I think we share almost all of the same priorities in this bill, which makes it, as one might imagine, much less difficult to bring a bill to the floor. We do not agree on everything obviously, but I think in most cases we do. So we have enjoyed the benefit of his advice and the staffs have worked very closely together. The subcommittee and the full committee worked very hard to bring this bill out. Like most of the appropriations subcommittees, we were given a very tight 302(b) allocation. Nevertheless, we were able to make what I think are good policy and funding choices to produce a good, fair bill that deserves support. Here are some of the highlights: this bill fully funds veterans medical care [[Page H4614]] with a $1.355 billion increase over last year's record level. Last year, we increased it $1.7 billion, $1.355 billion this year for a total of over $3 billion increase in 2 years. I think that shows how important this subcommittee, this full committee, and the House take our commitments to our veterans. It provides full funding for medical research, major construction, and cemetery administration operations. Just as important, we have begun an effort to conduct better oversight of how much medical care funding goes for medical care, per se, and how much goes to maintaining buildings and facilities. All veterans, no matter where they are located, deserve the best facilities that we can offer. We have also included language to make sure that veterans medical receipts stay within the VA system and do not go to the Treasury as was suggested by the Administration. Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are fully funded, and we have included language to push the Department to do a better, faster job of getting funds out of Washington to the people who need them most. HUD's record in this regard is not one to be proud of. We had 247,000 section 8 vouchers go begging last year because HUD did not get the job done. So we have accounted for that and still have fully funded the section 8 requirements. We have essentially level funded the Community Development Block Grant entitlement programs, trimming them by less than 1 percent. We have level funded or only slightly reduced most other HUD programs, making sure that HUD was not using the bank to pay for other programs as it did last year. AmeriCorps has been zeroed out. I am sure that will be a topic for discussion in conference and in consultation with the White House. In this bill, there is no funding. EPA's operating programs have been level funded while various State grant programs, which assist the States in implementing Federal laws, have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, gutted in the President's budget request, has been restored to $1.2 billion. That is real commitment on the part of Congress to support cleaner water and to improve the environment of this country, an area where I think the Administration is sorely lacking, while State and local air grants from section 319 non-point source pollution grants have been increased significantly. Perhaps most important, we have proposed $245 million, more than double last year's level and $85 million more than the Administration's request, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer the States the maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL issues facing the States. To help the States deal with the MTBE problems caused by leaking underground storage tank facilities, that is a gasoline additive that has recently been banned by the EPA, we have upped the account at EPA by $9 million over last year and $7 million over the budget request. CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been proposed for an increase over last year's funding level. They are doing a good job. They deserve our support; we provided it. {time} 1615 Likewise, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, perhaps the most productive and most efficient Federal organization dealing with housing, has been provided their full funding level of $90 million. Again, they have earned and deserve our support. We should reward positive performance. The National Science Foundation has received an increase of $167 million over last year's level, putting them over $4 billion, their largest funding level ever. Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of $113 million, their first increase in several years. Mr. Chairman, there is one point regarding this bill that really needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we faced a tight allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that this bill received an allocation that is nearly $5 billion above last year. I would like to try to set the record straight. The reality is that our new allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is that CBO's freeze level for this budget was $76.9 billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just $1.1 billion over last year. I hasten to add that that increase has been totally absorbed by VA medical care, $1.355 billion over last year, a Section 8 housing increase of nearly $2 billion, and increases provided for National Science Foundation and NASA over last year's level. Nearly every other program in this bill was either level funded or reduced slightly so that we could meet these necessary increases and still stay within our allocation. I have to say that it would be very difficult to get this bill this far without the support and assistance of my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the rest of this hard- working subcommittee and our staffs, and we have wonderful staffs. While we do not always agree on every issue, every effort has been made on both sides to continue the subcommittee's strong history of bipartisan cooperation in the crafting of this bill. I truly appreciate the gentleman's help and close working relationship. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill. It is a good fair bill, with solid policy direction, while staying completely within our budget authority and outlay allocations. I strongly encourage the support of this body in moving this measure forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process. Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt. The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8 housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill, the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities. We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill reflects, missed a lot of opportunities. Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential veto. Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508 million less than that requested by the President for the National Science Foundation. Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and reduce the cost of access to space. Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development Block Grants and public housing below the current year level. And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters. The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more resources for medical [[Page H4615]] research at the Veterans Administration or for construction of State- needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why are we not doing more to expand the supply of affordable housing and helping our Nation's homeless? Why are we not doing more for environmental restoration and protection? And why are we not doing more to explore space and perform the basic scientific research that is directly responsible for our current economic boom? We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided, instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong last year, and it is wrong now. Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however, we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the question of why we go through this exercise at all. I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However, I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do. This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when will we? During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas. Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation. No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I believe that this process should move forward. It is also important that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members. The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect to see something markedly different than what we have before us today. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among a number of Federal agencies under our committee's jurisdiction. Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so many national and regional priorities within a limited budget allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds, $4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year. That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8 renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies, homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, known as HOPA. This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's long overdue request for this purpose. Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75 percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing units. The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases. {time} 1630 The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year. Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials in many waste sites around the country that have been abandoned. As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of costly, protracted lawsuits. The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE. During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive. While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country. California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500, New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected adversely. As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill [[Page H4616]] builds upon that decision by providing $9 million for efforts to correct leaking underground storage tank problems associated with this additive. Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year. It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4- billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of national science and engineering in every State and institution of higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth. I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of the committee. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a debate or part of the debate about our national priorities and our national values and it helps decide who we are going to put first in this society. This Congress has committed itself to pass a large number of very large tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts are aimed at the most well- off people in our society. The wealthiest 2 percent will get a huge percentage of those tax cuts. And our ability to afford those tax cuts is based on the assumption by the majority that over the next few years we will cut $125 billion below current services, below existing purchasing power levels, a whole host of programs: education programs, health programs, housing programs, land acquisition programs, science programs, all the rest. That is really what this debate is all about. Because this is one of the appropriation bills that is cut by a large amount below the President's budget in order to pretend that we can squeeze out enough room for those huge tax cuts aimed at the most well-off people in this society. And I do not believe we ought to do that. I think we need to look at this budget in terms of what we need 10 years from now because this is a growing society, it is a growing population. We have growing needs, we are going to have more people who need housing, we are going to have more people in high schools, we are going to have more people in college, we are going to have more needs, and these bills are not responding to them. Some examples of that lack of response are as follows: As has been indicated, the distinguished chairman has done the best he can given the budget ceiling which was assigned to his subcommittee and this bill does contain a welcome $1.35 billion increase for veterans' medical care. It is about time that both parties get off their duff on that. But it fails to adequately provide for several other priorities for veterans. It does freeze funds for veterans' medical and prosthetic research. It cuts grants for construction of State veterans homes one-third below current year levels and does some other things that we are not happy about. It needlessly creates a political confrontation with the President by terminating the Corporation for National and Community Service, including the AmeriCorps program. Everyone on this floor knows the President is not going to sign this bill with that provision. For housing, it appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the administration. It cuts Community Development Block Grants $276 million below the current year level and $395 million below the President's request. It freezes funding for homeless assistance. It provides a number of other cuts on the environmental front and on the NASA front. I happen to believe the most serious cut of all in terms of our long- term economic health is what this bill does to the National Science Foundation because it falls short of the President's request by $508 billion. And I think it is essential to understand that the National Science Foundation does much of the basic scientific research, upon which all our other technological and medical progress is based. We have had economists estimate that at least half of our economic productivity in the past 50 years can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported that innovation. And yet, this bill is a giant missed opportunity because it cuts the President's budget with respect to that program. It falls $508 million below the President's request. And then, in addition, it takes actions which, in concert with other actions taken by other subcommittees, slowly but surely fences in the Justice Department so that neither they nor any other agency of Government can mount an effective lawsuit against the tobacco companies for lying through their teeth to the American people for the past 40 years about whether or not their product caused cancer. And so, the Government has shelled out billions of dollars in Medicare, in veterans' health costs to deal with health consequences of that product and the lying selling of that product to the American people. And I think that needs to be corrected. So these are a number of reasons why, although I have profound respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and consider him to be one of the finest people in this institution, I cannot support the work product that the budget resolution has forced him to come up with. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding on my behalf, and I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for all the great effort and the great work that he has done as chairman of this subcommittee. I want to thank, also, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has teamed up with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to make this thing work. I want to further thank the staff, led by Frank Cushing, for all the great efforts that they have made on this legislation. It is not easy, and I know that; and most people do not know how much time staff puts into the effort that brings forth a bill. This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. And there is a lot of distance in between. It is not an easy task to bring this wide range of interest into a single bill. However, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have a working relationship that I think makes this all possible. H.R. 4635 is a good bill and keeps us within the budget resolution. I would point out that the product before us contains, as undoubtedly has been commented on, no Member earmarks. In this respect, it is eminently fair because there are no winners or losers. The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation produced under very difficult circumstances and is within, again, the budget resolution. It responsibly provides a $1.3-billion increase for veterans' medical health care, fully funds section 8 housing, and provides sound investments in research-intensive agencies, such as NASA and, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) just mentioned, the National Science Foundation. As this process moves forward, there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the President finally signs the bill. I would implore my colleagues not to let perfection be the enemy of good. This is a good and responsible bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it. Again, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted for crafting this piece of legislation under these circumstances. He has worked in good faith with the ranking member on the other side in a bipartisan spirit to form a bill that the House has now before it. My colleagues, this is a fair bill and there will be time to strengthen it further as the process moves along. So I urge its support. [[Page H4617]] Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I speak today on one part of the bill before us, title I, the bill funding the Department of Administration, and I speak as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in this House. Now, all of us on this side of the aisle have spoken of our deep respect for the chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but we also have taken issue with the sense that we are doing all we can do in this bill, in this case for our Nation's veterans. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks in a passive sense that we have been allocated a number. This is an active decision by this House to allocate certain figures, and this House can do what it will with regard to the budget. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, we have spoken about our priorities. This budget ranks veterans' affairs, I am afraid, very low in the priorities. The chair said that this is fully funded, medical care for our veterans is fully funded. I am not sure what that means, but I would challenge my colleagues to go to any town hall meeting of veterans in this Nation and tell them that their benefits and their health care is fully funded. The gentleman from Michigan said this is a good and responsible budget. I take issue. It is not a good budget. It is an irresponsible budget. We are reneging on our commitment to our Nation's veterans, Mr. Speaker. We have asked our veterans to sacrifice in war. When we had deficits, we asked our veterans to take cuts because we had to share the sacrifice of cutting those deficits. But now that we have surpluses, it is time to make up on those commitments and start fulfilling those commitments. Many of our national cemeteries are a national disgrace. The waiting list for our veterans to see medical specialists goes months and months and months to get adjudication. Their benefits claims may take years. This is not a good and responsible budget. We are falling behind, Mr. Speaker, on medical research for veterans. We are falling behind on our commitment to fund our State veterans' homes. We are falling behind on helping our homeless veterans. We are falling behind on providing educational benefits to those veterans. {time} 1645 The Montgomery GI bill is almost worthless in terms of its spending power in today's market. I am going to submit amendments, Mr. Chairman, to cover some of these shortcomings, but I want to speak on a couple now. We are not adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who served in the Gulf War and who now suffer from various diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years, Mr. Chairman, since the men and women of our Armed Forces were sent to the gulf, yet they do not know what caused their illness, and we have no treatment for it. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and appropriate research. This budget does virtually nothing for those veterans. I speak today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Independent Budget, a budget that was propounded by a coalition of all the veterans organizations in this Nation. It is a responsible, professional budget. They show that this budget falls behind on our commitment by a minimum of $1.5 billion. It points out that as our veteran population ages, the need for long-term care increases. One means of providing that is through our funding of State veterans homes. In fact, a new home just opened in my congressional district; and already there is a waiting list of hundreds and hundreds. Other areas should have the same opportunity as the veterans in my San Diego region with the opening of this new home. Yet this budget has a decrease in funding for State homes. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's veterans require an educational benefit that will actually allow them to attend college. I will propose such an amendment when the time comes. We have fallen behind on trying to deal with our homeless veterans. Thirty to 40 percent of those on the street are veterans. This is no way to treat those who served for us. We should increase that. This budget does not. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of people in this Nation who served during World War II and were drafted into Armed Forces, Filipino veterans who helped us win the war in the Pacific. They are in their 70s and 80s. We need to provide them the health care that was taken away by this Congress more than 50 years ago. $30 million is all that is required to provide this health care. I will submit an amendment to do just that. Mr. Chairman, we are falling farther and farther behind with this budget. It is time to reverse our priorities. It is time to recognize the heroism and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Let us truly fully fund this budget. Let us truly make this a good and responsible budget. Let us do better for our Nation's veterans. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to discuss some of the issues that were just raised. I will be brief. I am not going to fight every battle and counter every argument, but I do think it needs to be said that we are not falling behind. We are not falling behind in our commitments to our veterans. In fact, the strides that this Congress has made in the last 2 years, $1.7 billion last year, almost $1.4 billion this year, that is over a $3 billion commitment in a $20 billion health care allocation. That is a profound commitment to our veterans. I do not believe any Congress in the recent or distant past has made that sort of commitment. I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we are falling behind. If anything, we are quickly catching up if not pulling ahead. But to say we are falling behind, I think, gives grist for the mill for those uninformed people out there who are saying we are not keeping our commitments to the veteran. I strongly disagree. On the issue of the G.I. Bill, those benefits are mandatory. The gentleman sits on the committee of authorization. That is where that issue belongs, not here in the committee on appropriations. Those are mandatory benefits, not within our purview to determine allocation of funds. It is mandatory. Lastly, the GAO study says that the Veterans Administration is wasting $1 million a day through poor administration. That is over $300 million a year wasted. We cannot afford to have that waste continue. Clearly, the Congress can do better; but the administration can, too. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking. Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and saved this [[Page H4618]] country from various battles across the history of our country. But it is not funded properly. In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in our country who have served this country well. I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in America, the least of these who find themselves living in public housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7 billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met. The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district, and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime, free from other kinds of negative things in our budget. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets. There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress. I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening, let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak out for them. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) because I think they probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs, this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nation's capabilities in science and engineering research and education. The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million. This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the House. It also ignores the well-known connection between research and economic development. I characterize the bill as shortsighted because it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the well- being of our citizens. Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported it. The social rate of return for basic research performed at academic institutions has been found to be at least 28 percent. Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent example of the Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The most important is also the least quantifiable, that is, the lost opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued. Last year alone, the National Science Foundation could not fund 3,800 proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. The budget increase requested for fiscal year 2001 has greatly reduced the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposal was designated for the core research programs of the foundation. This new funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative value of National Science Foundation awards, thereby adding to the overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is, researchers must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding for their research projects. If NSF were to be allowed to reach its goal of increasing average grant size to $108,000 and grant duration to 3 years, it estimates the savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50 million. Of course, this is only a portion of the potential savings since it does not include reductions in the time for proposal reviews and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few grants. Overall, the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will result in more than 4,000 fewer awards for state-of-the-art research and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as information technology, the nanoscale science and engineering, and environmental research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society. The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18,000 fewer researchers, educators, and students receiving NSF support. This is a direct, and negative, effect on the shortages projected in the high- tech workforce. It will reduce the number of well-trained scientists and engineers needed for the Nation's future. Finally, I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many Members of this House in the development and widespread use of information technology. In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among seven agencies for information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multi- agency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources. H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSF's part of this initiative by over $154 million, or by more than 20 percent. The need for the major new investment in information technology research was advocated by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: ``Unless immediate steps are taken to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area, we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of economic progress over the coming decades.'' I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for the research that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials, environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent industries. The economic growth that has been fueled by advances in basic research will be endangered because of the failure of this bill to provide adequate resources for the math, science, and engineering research and education activities of the National Science Foundation. This is shameful and irresponsible. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along, that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget within the VA [[Page H4619]] system. The President's budget proposed that the first $350 million collected as a result of changes under the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act signed into law and passed last year be returned to the Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration. {time} 1700 This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with the Vietnam-Era part of our history. In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However, during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand was not there. Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey, the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the national average. The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and this is a budget that points us in the right direction. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect, $200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless, the judgment of this House. In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of that industry. Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a couple of weeks we will have given $200 billion to 400 families by eliminating the estate tax, and we will refuse to bring in potentially $300 billion that can be used for veterans' health, Indian health services, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, so many things where we are always saying we do not have the money to fund it. The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times over that amount back to the veterans' health program. Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued. They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the groups want this lawsuit to go forward. Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke. They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking. I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments, that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will hear more about it later. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 30 seconds remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right to close. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, many requests that would be more than 30 seconds; and, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD. Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase in NSF funding. Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments to make. I think we can conclude our general debate and move into amendments. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record. [[Page H4620]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.001 [[Page H4621]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.002 [[Page H4622]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.003 [[Page H4623]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.004 [[Page H4624]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.005 [[Page H4625]] Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to highlight several features of this legislation that are important to our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's reformulated gasoline mandate. national science foundation Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17, 2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level. While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million, NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level requested, especially given the large increases planned for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Indeed, I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical research be more widely recognized. Today, we are in the midst of one of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes much to technological changes driven by the basic scientific research conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research supported by NSF. Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and computational sciences as the biological sciences. I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular area or areas relative to other.'' If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area, I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs. national aeronautics and space administration While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714 billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year. I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully answered. As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of risk. Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to move our space program to the next level of achievement. The Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate safeguards to protect the federal investment. I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that goal because I believe the program is important. EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost, potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage. Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel, have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any impact on improving air quality. Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers, and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near. EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions on this issue. Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. H.R. 4635, which we are considering today is woefully inadequate and fails to address America's needs in housing, economic development, veterans, and science and technology programs. This is particularly distressing in these times of unprecedented prosperity and rising surpluses. Among many unacceptable funding provisions, the bill freezes funding for veterans medical research, cuts grants for construction of state veterans homes $30 million below the current year level, and provides $56 million less than requested to improve processing of applications for benefits. The bill appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the Administration. Further, it cuts the Community Development Block Grant by $275 million below the current year level. And while it provides an increase for research at the National Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's requested increased by $508 million. The bill also fails to adequately provide for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science and Technology programs, which the bill underfunds by $323 million. These cuts I believe would jeopardize the future of our space research programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our universe. Even more distressing, the bill only appropriates $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested by the Administration for the Federal Emer

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 19, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4613-H4641] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1610 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of Representatives the bill, H.R. 4635, making fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and independent agencies. So that we can move quickly, I will keep my comments brief. First, let me just thank the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his advice and counsel throughout this discussion. Even though we have different political persuasions, I think we share almost all of the same priorities in this bill, which makes it, as one might imagine, much less difficult to bring a bill to the floor. We do not agree on everything obviously, but I think in most cases we do. So we have enjoyed the benefit of his advice and the staffs have worked very closely together. The subcommittee and the full committee worked very hard to bring this bill out. Like most of the appropriations subcommittees, we were given a very tight 302(b) allocation. Nevertheless, we were able to make what I think are good policy and funding choices to produce a good, fair bill that deserves support. Here are some of the highlights: this bill fully funds veterans medical care [[Page H4614]] with a $1.355 billion increase over last year's record level. Last year, we increased it $1.7 billion, $1.355 billion this year for a total of over $3 billion increase in 2 years. I think that shows how important this subcommittee, this full committee, and the House take our commitments to our veterans. It provides full funding for medical research, major construction, and cemetery administration operations. Just as important, we have begun an effort to conduct better oversight of how much medical care funding goes for medical care, per se, and how much goes to maintaining buildings and facilities. All veterans, no matter where they are located, deserve the best facilities that we can offer. We have also included language to make sure that veterans medical receipts stay within the VA system and do not go to the Treasury as was suggested by the Administration. Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are fully funded, and we have included language to push the Department to do a better, faster job of getting funds out of Washington to the people who need them most. HUD's record in this regard is not one to be proud of. We had 247,000 section 8 vouchers go begging last year because HUD did not get the job done. So we have accounted for that and still have fully funded the section 8 requirements. We have essentially level funded the Community Development Block Grant entitlement programs, trimming them by less than 1 percent. We have level funded or only slightly reduced most other HUD programs, making sure that HUD was not using the bank to pay for other programs as it did last year. AmeriCorps has been zeroed out. I am sure that will be a topic for discussion in conference and in consultation with the White House. In this bill, there is no funding. EPA's operating programs have been level funded while various State grant programs, which assist the States in implementing Federal laws, have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, gutted in the President's budget request, has been restored to $1.2 billion. That is real commitment on the part of Congress to support cleaner water and to improve the environment of this country, an area where I think the Administration is sorely lacking, while State and local air grants from section 319 non-point source pollution grants have been increased significantly. Perhaps most important, we have proposed $245 million, more than double last year's level and $85 million more than the Administration's request, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer the States the maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL issues facing the States. To help the States deal with the MTBE problems caused by leaking underground storage tank facilities, that is a gasoline additive that has recently been banned by the EPA, we have upped the account at EPA by $9 million over last year and $7 million over the budget request. CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been proposed for an increase over last year's funding level. They are doing a good job. They deserve our support; we provided it. {time} 1615 Likewise, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, perhaps the most productive and most efficient Federal organization dealing with housing, has been provided their full funding level of $90 million. Again, they have earned and deserve our support. We should reward positive performance. The National Science Foundation has received an increase of $167 million over last year's level, putting them over $4 billion, their largest funding level ever. Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of $113 million, their first increase in several years. Mr. Chairman, there is one point regarding this bill that really needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we faced a tight allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that this bill received an allocation that is nearly $5 billion above last year. I would like to try to set the record straight. The reality is that our new allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is that CBO's freeze level for this budget was $76.9 billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just $1.1 billion over last year. I hasten to add that that increase has been totally absorbed by VA medical care, $1.355 billion over last year, a Section 8 housing increase of nearly $2 billion, and increases provided for National Science Foundation and NASA over last year's level. Nearly every other program in this bill was either level funded or reduced slightly so that we could meet these necessary increases and still stay within our allocation. I have to say that it would be very difficult to get this bill this far without the support and assistance of my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the rest of this hard- working subcommittee and our staffs, and we have wonderful staffs. While we do not always agree on every issue, every effort has been made on both sides to continue the subcommittee's strong history of bipartisan cooperation in the crafting of this bill. I truly appreciate the gentleman's help and close working relationship. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill. It is a good fair bill, with solid policy direction, while staying completely within our budget authority and outlay allocations. I strongly encourage the support of this body in moving this measure forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process. Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt. The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8 housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill, the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities. We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill reflects, missed a lot of opportunities. Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential veto. Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508 million less than that requested by the President for the National Science Foundation. Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and reduce the cost of access to space. Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development Block Grants and public housing below the current year level. And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters. The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more resources for medical [[Page H4615]] research at the Veterans Administration or for construction of State- needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why are we not doing more to expand the supply of affordable housing and helping our Nation's homeless? Why are we not doing more for environmental restoration and protection? And why are we not doing more to explore space and perform the basic scientific research that is directly responsible for our current economic boom? We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided, instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong last year, and it is wrong now. Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however, we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the question of why we go through this exercise at all. I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However, I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do. This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when will we? During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas. Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation. No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I believe that this process should move forward. It is also important that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members. The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect to see something markedly different than what we have before us today. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among a number of Federal agencies under our committee's jurisdiction. Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so many national and regional priorities within a limited budget allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds, $4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year. That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8 renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies, homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, known as HOPA. This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's long overdue request for this purpose. Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75 percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing units. The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases. {time} 1630 The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year. Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials in many waste sites around the country that have been abandoned. As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of costly, protracted lawsuits. The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE. During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive. While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country. California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500, New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected adversely. As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill [[Page H4616]] builds upon that decision by providing $9 million for efforts to correct leaking underground storage tank problems associated with this additive. Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year. It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4- billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of national science and engineering in every State and institution of higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth. I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of the committee. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a debate or part of the debate about our national priorities and our national values and it helps decide who we are going to put first in this society. This Congress has committed itself to pass a large number of very large tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts are aimed at the most well- off people in our society. The wealthiest 2 percent will get a huge percentage of those tax cuts. And our ability to afford those tax cuts is based on the assumption by the majority that over the next few years we will cut $125 billion below current services, below existing purchasing power levels, a whole host of programs: education programs, health programs, housing programs, land acquisition programs, science programs, all the rest. That is really what this debate is all about. Because this is one of the appropriation bills that is cut by a large amount below the President's budget in order to pretend that we can squeeze out enough room for those huge tax cuts aimed at the most well-off people in this society. And I do not believe we ought to do that. I think we need to look at this budget in terms of what we need 10 years from now because this is a growing society, it is a growing population. We have growing needs, we are going to have more people who need housing, we are going to have more people in high schools, we are going to have more people in college, we are going to have more needs, and these bills are not responding to them. Some examples of that lack of response are as follows: As has been indicated, the distinguished chairman has done the best he can given the budget ceiling which was assigned to his subcommittee and this bill does contain a welcome $1.35 billion increase for veterans' medical care. It is about time that both parties get off their duff on that. But it fails to adequately provide for several other priorities for veterans. It does freeze funds for veterans' medical and prosthetic research. It cuts grants for construction of State veterans homes one-third below current year levels and does some other things that we are not happy about. It needlessly creates a political confrontation with the President by terminating the Corporation for National and Community Service, including the AmeriCorps program. Everyone on this floor knows the President is not going to sign this bill with that provision. For housing, it appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the administration. It cuts Community Development Block Grants $276 million below the current year level and $395 million below the President's request. It freezes funding for homeless assistance. It provides a number of other cuts on the environmental front and on the NASA front. I happen to believe the most serious cut of all in terms of our long- term economic health is what this bill does to the National Science Foundation because it falls short of the President's request by $508 billion. And I think it is essential to understand that the National Science Foundation does much of the basic scientific research, upon which all our other technological and medical progress is based. We have had economists estimate that at least half of our economic productivity in the past 50 years can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported that innovation. And yet, this bill is a giant missed opportunity because it cuts the President's budget with respect to that program. It falls $508 million below the President's request. And then, in addition, it takes actions which, in concert with other actions taken by other subcommittees, slowly but surely fences in the Justice Department so that neither they nor any other agency of Government can mount an effective lawsuit against the tobacco companies for lying through their teeth to the American people for the past 40 years about whether or not their product caused cancer. And so, the Government has shelled out billions of dollars in Medicare, in veterans' health costs to deal with health consequences of that product and the lying selling of that product to the American people. And I think that needs to be corrected. So these are a number of reasons why, although I have profound respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and consider him to be one of the finest people in this institution, I cannot support the work product that the budget resolution has forced him to come up with. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding on my behalf, and I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for all the great effort and the great work that he has done as chairman of this subcommittee. I want to thank, also, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has teamed up with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to make this thing work. I want to further thank the staff, led by Frank Cushing, for all the great efforts that they have made on this legislation. It is not easy, and I know that; and most people do not know how much time staff puts into the effort that brings forth a bill. This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. And there is a lot of distance in between. It is not an easy task to bring this wide range of interest into a single bill. However, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have a working relationship that I think makes this all possible. H.R. 4635 is a good bill and keeps us within the budget resolution. I would point out that the product before us contains, as undoubtedly has been commented on, no Member earmarks. In this respect, it is eminently fair because there are no winners or losers. The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation produced under very difficult circumstances and is within, again, the budget resolution. It responsibly provides a $1.3-billion increase for veterans' medical health care, fully funds section 8 housing, and provides sound investments in research-intensive agencies, such as NASA and, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) just mentioned, the National Science Foundation. As this process moves forward, there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the President finally signs the bill. I would implore my colleagues not to let perfection be the enemy of good. This is a good and responsible bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it. Again, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted for crafting this piece of legislation under these circumstances. He has worked in good faith with the ranking member on the other side in a bipartisan spirit to form a bill that the House has now before it. My colleagues, this is a fair bill and there will be time to strengthen it further as the process moves along. So I urge its support. [[Page H4617]] Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I speak today on one part of the bill before us, title I, the bill funding the Department of Administration, and I speak as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in this House. Now, all of us on this side of the aisle have spoken of our deep respect for the chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but we also have taken issue with the sense that we are doing all we can do in this bill, in this case for our Nation's veterans. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks in a passive sense that we have been allocated a number. This is an active decision by this House to allocate certain figures, and this House can do what it will with regard to the budget. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, we have spoken about our priorities. This budget ranks veterans' affairs, I am afraid, very low in the priorities. The chair said that this is fully funded, medical care for our veterans is fully funded. I am not sure what that means, but I would challenge my colleagues to go to any town hall meeting of veterans in this Nation and tell them that their benefits and their health care is fully funded. The gentleman from Michigan said this is a good and responsible budget. I take issue. It is not a good budget. It is an irresponsible budget. We are reneging on our commitment to our Nation's veterans, Mr. Speaker. We have asked our veterans to sacrifice in war. When we had deficits, we asked our veterans to take cuts because we had to share the sacrifice of cutting those deficits. But now that we have surpluses, it is time to make up on those commitments and start fulfilling those commitments. Many of our national cemeteries are a national disgrace. The waiting list for our veterans to see medical specialists goes months and months and months to get adjudication. Their benefits claims may take years. This is not a good and responsible budget. We are falling behind, Mr. Speaker, on medical research for veterans. We are falling behind on our commitment to fund our State veterans' homes. We are falling behind on helping our homeless veterans. We are falling behind on providing educational benefits to those veterans. {time} 1645 The Montgomery GI bill is almost worthless in terms of its spending power in today's market. I am going to submit amendments, Mr. Chairman, to cover some of these shortcomings, but I want to speak on a couple now. We are not adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who served in the Gulf War and who now suffer from various diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years, Mr. Chairman, since the men and women of our Armed Forces were sent to the gulf, yet they do not know what caused their illness, and we have no treatment for it. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and appropriate research. This budget does virtually nothing for those veterans. I speak today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Independent Budget, a budget that was propounded by a coalition of all the veterans organizations in this Nation. It is a responsible, professional budget. They show that this budget falls behind on our commitment by a minimum of $1.5 billion. It points out that as our veteran population ages, the need for long-term care increases. One means of providing that is through our funding of State veterans homes. In fact, a new home just opened in my congressional district; and already there is a waiting list of hundreds and hundreds. Other areas should have the same opportunity as the veterans in my San Diego region with the opening of this new home. Yet this budget has a decrease in funding for State homes. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's veterans require an educational benefit that will actually allow them to attend college. I will propose such an amendment when the time comes. We have fallen behind on trying to deal with our homeless veterans. Thirty to 40 percent of those on the street are veterans. This is no way to treat those who served for us. We should increase that. This budget does not. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of people in this Nation who served during World War II and were drafted into Armed Forces, Filipino veterans who helped us win the war in the Pacific. They are in their 70s and 80s. We need to provide them the health care that was taken away by this Congress more than 50 years ago. $30 million is all that is required to provide this health care. I will submit an amendment to do just that. Mr. Chairman, we are falling farther and farther behind with this budget. It is time to reverse our priorities. It is time to recognize the heroism and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Let us truly fully fund this budget. Let us truly make this a good and responsible budget. Let us do better for our Nation's veterans. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to discuss some of the issues that were just raised. I will be brief. I am not going to fight every battle and counter every argument, but I do think it needs to be said that we are not falling behind. We are not falling behind in our commitments to our veterans. In fact, the strides that this Congress has made in the last 2 years, $1.7 billion last year, almost $1.4 billion this year, that is over a $3 billion commitment in a $20 billion health care allocation. That is a profound commitment to our veterans. I do not believe any Congress in the recent or distant past has made that sort of commitment. I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we are falling behind. If anything, we are quickly catching up if not pulling ahead. But to say we are falling behind, I think, gives grist for the mill for those uninformed people out there who are saying we are not keeping our commitments to the veteran. I strongly disagree. On the issue of the G.I. Bill, those benefits are mandatory. The gentleman sits on the committee of authorization. That is where that issue belongs, not here in the committee on appropriations. Those are mandatory benefits, not within our purview to determine allocation of funds. It is mandatory. Lastly, the GAO study says that the Veterans Administration is wasting $1 million a day through poor administration. That is over $300 million a year wasted. We cannot afford to have that waste continue. Clearly, the Congress can do better; but the administration can, too. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking. Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and saved this [[Page H4618]] country from various battles across the history of our country. But it is not funded properly. In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in our country who have served this country well. I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in America, the least of these who find themselves living in public housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7 billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met. The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district, and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime, free from other kinds of negative things in our budget. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets. There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress. I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening, let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak out for them. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) because I think they probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs, this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nation's capabilities in science and engineering research and education. The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million. This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the House. It also ignores the well-known connection between research and economic development. I characterize the bill as shortsighted because it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the well- being of our citizens. Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported it. The social rate of return for basic research performed at academic institutions has been found to be at least 28 percent. Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent example of the Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The most important is also the least quantifiable, that is, the lost opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued. Last year alone, the National Science Foundation could not fund 3,800 proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. The budget increase requested for fiscal year 2001 has greatly reduced the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposal was designated for the core research programs of the foundation. This new funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative value of National Science Foundation awards, thereby adding to the overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is, researchers must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding for their research projects. If NSF were to be allowed to reach its goal of increasing average grant size to $108,000 and grant duration to 3 years, it estimates the savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50 million. Of course, this is only a portion of the potential savings since it does not include reductions in the time for proposal reviews and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few grants. Overall, the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will result in more than 4,000 fewer awards for state-of-the-art research and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as information technology, the nanoscale science and engineering, and environmental research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society. The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18,000 fewer researchers, educators, and students receiving NSF support. This is a direct, and negative, effect on the shortages projected in the high- tech workforce. It will reduce the number of well-trained scientists and engineers needed for the Nation's future. Finally, I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many Members of this House in the development and widespread use of information technology. In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among seven agencies for information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multi- agency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources. H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSF's part of this initiative by over $154 million, or by more than 20 percent. The need for the major new investment in information technology research was advocated by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: ``Unless immediate steps are taken to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area, we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of economic progress over the coming decades.'' I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for the research that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials, environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent industries. The economic growth that has been fueled by advances in basic research will be endangered because of the failure of this bill to provide adequate resources for the math, science, and engineering research and education activities of the National Science Foundation. This is shameful and irresponsible. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along, that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget within the VA [[Page H4619]] system. The President's budget proposed that the first $350 million collected as a result of changes under the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act signed into law and passed last year be returned to the Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration. {time} 1700 This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with the Vietnam-Era part of our history. In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However, during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand was not there. Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey, the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the national average. The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and this is a budget that points us in the right direction. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect, $200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless, the judgment of this House. In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of that industry. Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a couple of weeks we will have given $200 billion to 400 families by eliminating the estate tax, and we will refuse to bring in potentially $300 billion that can be used for veterans' health, Indian health services, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, so many things where we are always saying we do not have the money to fund it. The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times over that amount back to the veterans' health program. Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued. They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the groups want this lawsuit to go forward. Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke. They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking. I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments, that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will hear more about it later. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 30 seconds remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right to close. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, many requests that would be more than 30 seconds; and, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD. Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase in NSF funding. Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments to make. I think we can conclude our general debate and move into amendments. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record. [[Page H4620]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.001 [[Page H4621]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.002 [[Page H4622]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.003 [[Page H4623]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.004 [[Page H4624]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.005 [[Page H4625]] Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to highlight several features of this legislation that are important to our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's reformulated gasoline mandate. national science foundation Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17, 2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level. While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million, NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level requested, especially given the large increases planned for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Indeed, I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical research be more widely recognized. Today, we are in the midst of one of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes much to technological changes driven by the basic scientific research conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research supported by NSF. Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and computational sciences as the biological sciences. I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular area or areas relative to other.'' If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area, I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs. national aeronautics and space administration While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714 billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year. I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully answered. As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of risk. Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to move our space program to the next level of achievement. The Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate safeguards to protect the federal investment. I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that goal because I believe the program is important. EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost, potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage. Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel, have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any impact on improving air quality. Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers, and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near. EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions on this issue. Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. H.R. 4635, which we are considering today is woefully inadequate and fails to address America's needs in housing, economic development, veterans, and science and technology programs. This is particularly distressing in these times of unprecedented prosperity and rising surpluses. Among many unacceptable funding provisions, the bill freezes funding for veterans medical research, cuts grants for construction of state veterans homes $30 million below the current year level, and provides $56 million less than requested to improve processing of applications for benefits. The bill appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the Administration. Further, it cuts the Community Development Block Grant by $275 million below the current year level. And while it provides an increase for research at the National Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's requested increased by $508 million. The bill also fails to adequately provide for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science and Technology programs, which the bill underfunds by $323 million. These cuts I believe would jeopardize the future of our space research programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our universe. Even more distressing, the bill only appropriates $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested by the Administration for the Federal Emergency Man

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 19, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4613-H4641] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1610 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House of Representatives the bill, H.R. 4635, making fiscal year 2001 appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and independent agencies. So that we can move quickly, I will keep my comments brief. First, let me just thank the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his advice and counsel throughout this discussion. Even though we have different political persuasions, I think we share almost all of the same priorities in this bill, which makes it, as one might imagine, much less difficult to bring a bill to the floor. We do not agree on everything obviously, but I think in most cases we do. So we have enjoyed the benefit of his advice and the staffs have worked very closely together. The subcommittee and the full committee worked very hard to bring this bill out. Like most of the appropriations subcommittees, we were given a very tight 302(b) allocation. Nevertheless, we were able to make what I think are good policy and funding choices to produce a good, fair bill that deserves support. Here are some of the highlights: this bill fully funds veterans medical care [[Page H4614]] with a $1.355 billion increase over last year's record level. Last year, we increased it $1.7 billion, $1.355 billion this year for a total of over $3 billion increase in 2 years. I think that shows how important this subcommittee, this full committee, and the House take our commitments to our veterans. It provides full funding for medical research, major construction, and cemetery administration operations. Just as important, we have begun an effort to conduct better oversight of how much medical care funding goes for medical care, per se, and how much goes to maintaining buildings and facilities. All veterans, no matter where they are located, deserve the best facilities that we can offer. We have also included language to make sure that veterans medical receipts stay within the VA system and do not go to the Treasury as was suggested by the Administration. Expiring section 8 contracts at HUD are fully funded, and we have included language to push the Department to do a better, faster job of getting funds out of Washington to the people who need them most. HUD's record in this regard is not one to be proud of. We had 247,000 section 8 vouchers go begging last year because HUD did not get the job done. So we have accounted for that and still have fully funded the section 8 requirements. We have essentially level funded the Community Development Block Grant entitlement programs, trimming them by less than 1 percent. We have level funded or only slightly reduced most other HUD programs, making sure that HUD was not using the bank to pay for other programs as it did last year. AmeriCorps has been zeroed out. I am sure that will be a topic for discussion in conference and in consultation with the White House. In this bill, there is no funding. EPA's operating programs have been level funded while various State grant programs, which assist the States in implementing Federal laws, have been more than fully funded. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, gutted in the President's budget request, has been restored to $1.2 billion. That is real commitment on the part of Congress to support cleaner water and to improve the environment of this country, an area where I think the Administration is sorely lacking, while State and local air grants from section 319 non-point source pollution grants have been increased significantly. Perhaps most important, we have proposed $245 million, more than double last year's level and $85 million more than the Administration's request, for section 106 pollution control grants. These grants offer the States the maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult TMDL issues facing the States. To help the States deal with the MTBE problems caused by leaking underground storage tank facilities, that is a gasoline additive that has recently been banned by the EPA, we have upped the account at EPA by $9 million over last year and $7 million over the budget request. CDFI, one of the President's new programs, has been proposed for an increase over last year's funding level. They are doing a good job. They deserve our support; we provided it. {time} 1615 Likewise, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, perhaps the most productive and most efficient Federal organization dealing with housing, has been provided their full funding level of $90 million. Again, they have earned and deserve our support. We should reward positive performance. The National Science Foundation has received an increase of $167 million over last year's level, putting them over $4 billion, their largest funding level ever. Similarly, NASA received an increase over last year of $113 million, their first increase in several years. Mr. Chairman, there is one point regarding this bill that really needs to be made. I stated at the outset that we faced a tight allocation. Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that this bill received an allocation that is nearly $5 billion above last year. I would like to try to set the record straight. The reality is that our new allocation is $78 billion in new budget authority. The reality is that CBO's freeze level for this budget was $76.9 billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just $1.1 billion over last year. I hasten to add that that increase has been totally absorbed by VA medical care, $1.355 billion over last year, a Section 8 housing increase of nearly $2 billion, and increases provided for National Science Foundation and NASA over last year's level. Nearly every other program in this bill was either level funded or reduced slightly so that we could meet these necessary increases and still stay within our allocation. I have to say that it would be very difficult to get this bill this far without the support and assistance of my ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the rest of this hard- working subcommittee and our staffs, and we have wonderful staffs. While we do not always agree on every issue, every effort has been made on both sides to continue the subcommittee's strong history of bipartisan cooperation in the crafting of this bill. I truly appreciate the gentleman's help and close working relationship. Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, this is the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies bill. It is a good fair bill, with solid policy direction, while staying completely within our budget authority and outlay allocations. I strongly encourage the support of this body in moving this measure forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I did during our committee markup, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and to his staff for their courtesy in dealing with our side of the aisle during this process. Although I do not think this bill is adequate in its current form, I applaud him for doing his best with the hand that he was dealt. The chairman is to be commended for doing the right thing for veterans medical care, providing a $1.3 billion increase and for providing a $2 billion increase to fully fund renewal of Section 8 housing contracts. But beyond these two large increases in the bill, the numbers before the committee tell a story of missed opportunities. We certainly appreciate the chairman's courtesy, we appreciate his listening to our concerns as the bill has been marked up, but because of the allocation that he has been given, he has, I think, and the bill reflects, missed a lot of opportunities. Instead of expanding even slightly our support for public service by young people through AmeriCorps, this bill zeros that program out totally, a move that would almost certainly lead to a presidential veto. Instead of providing the support the President requested for basic research at the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $508 million less than that requested by the President for the National Science Foundation. Instead of providing the amount requested for NASA's science and technology, the bill falls short by $323 million. In doing so, the bill abruptly terminates research and development on the next generation of reusable launch vehicles that would replace the space shuttle and reduce the cost of access to space. Instead of doing a bit more to help solve the crisis of affordable housing, the bill provides essentially no expansion of Federal housing assistance and actually cuts key programs like Community Development Block Grants and public housing below the current year level. And instead of providing the amounts for FEMA that the administration calculates would be needed even for an average year of hurricanes, floods and tornadoes, the bill provides only $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested. As a result, it jeopardizes FEMA's ability to respond quickly and adequately to natural disasters. The best that can be said is that this plan spreads the pain more or less evenly across all accounts, except of course for AmeriCorps, which this bill totally zeros. But when I examine the funding levels in the chairman's mark, I have to ask myself why are we not providing more resources for medical [[Page H4615]] research at the Veterans Administration or for construction of State- needed extended-care facilities for veterans? Why are we not doing more to expand the supply of affordable housing and helping our Nation's homeless? Why are we not doing more for environmental restoration and protection? And why are we not doing more to explore space and perform the basic scientific research that is directly responsible for our current economic boom? We have the largest budget surplus in decades, a surplus that keeps growing with every estimate. Yet rather than using part of that surplus to better meet our national needs, the majority leadership has decided, instead, to reserve it; to reserve it for large tax cuts targeted at upper-income levels that will never be enacted. That approach was wrong last year, and it is wrong now. Once again the Congress is being put through an exercise. The appropriation subcommittee chairmen are being given unreasonably low allocations and are being told to write bills accordingly, which they reluctantly do. By the time these bills are signed into law, however, we end up with something so markedly different that it begs the question of why we go through this exercise at all. I want to be clear about this. I believe the gentleman from New York has done the very best job he could do with what he was given. However, I reject the notion that this is the best we as a Congress can do. This bill, through no fault of the chairman, is a series of missed opportunities, missed opportunities to improve our Nation's water and sewer infrastructure, which virtually almost every community in this country either needs improvement in or need water and sewer infrastructure to begin with; missed opportunities to assist people of modest means to afford decent housing; missed opportunities to ensure our continued leadership in science and technology, and the list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. If we do not take these opportunities now, at a time when we are experiencing the best economy in a generation, when will we? During full committee markup, we on this side of the aisle offered several amendments in an attempt to add funds in a few critical areas. Unfortunately, all of those amendments were defeated, some by razor thin one-vote margins. We will attempt to do the same today and tomorrow as the full House considers this legislation. No matter what happens, Mr. Chairman, with these amendments, I believe that this process should move forward. It is also important that Members understand that, although this bill on its face appears to meet many programmatic needs, it falls short in one very significant area: meeting the priorities of individual Members. If the chairman has been approached by as many Members as I have, it is clear that great needs are going unmet. This bill must receive additional resources before the chairman will be able to address the interests of Members. The good news is that by the time the process is complete, I expect to see something markedly different than what we have before us today. I certainly hope so, Mr. Chairman. At that time I sincerely hope, and I hope that the chairman shares that hope, that such a bill will reflect the needs of our Nation and of our Members. This Congress has the means to provide health care to our veterans, to assist our elderly and less fortunate in securing housing, and to make the critical investments in research and technology that have fueled the largest economic expansion in history. When we do that, we will have a bill that everyone can support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among a number of Federal agencies under our committee's jurisdiction. Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so many national and regional priorities within a limited budget allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds, $4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year. That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8 renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies, homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, known as HOPA. This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's long overdue request for this purpose. Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75 percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing units. The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases. {time} 1630 The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year. Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials in many waste sites around the country that have been abandoned. As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of costly, protracted lawsuits. The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE. During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive. While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country. California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500, New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected adversely. As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill [[Page H4616]] builds upon that decision by providing $9 million for efforts to correct leaking underground storage tank problems associated with this additive. Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year. It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4- billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of national science and engineering in every State and institution of higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth. I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of the committee. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a debate or part of the debate about our national priorities and our national values and it helps decide who we are going to put first in this society. This Congress has committed itself to pass a large number of very large tax cuts, and most of those tax cuts are aimed at the most well- off people in our society. The wealthiest 2 percent will get a huge percentage of those tax cuts. And our ability to afford those tax cuts is based on the assumption by the majority that over the next few years we will cut $125 billion below current services, below existing purchasing power levels, a whole host of programs: education programs, health programs, housing programs, land acquisition programs, science programs, all the rest. That is really what this debate is all about. Because this is one of the appropriation bills that is cut by a large amount below the President's budget in order to pretend that we can squeeze out enough room for those huge tax cuts aimed at the most well-off people in this society. And I do not believe we ought to do that. I think we need to look at this budget in terms of what we need 10 years from now because this is a growing society, it is a growing population. We have growing needs, we are going to have more people who need housing, we are going to have more people in high schools, we are going to have more people in college, we are going to have more needs, and these bills are not responding to them. Some examples of that lack of response are as follows: As has been indicated, the distinguished chairman has done the best he can given the budget ceiling which was assigned to his subcommittee and this bill does contain a welcome $1.35 billion increase for veterans' medical care. It is about time that both parties get off their duff on that. But it fails to adequately provide for several other priorities for veterans. It does freeze funds for veterans' medical and prosthetic research. It cuts grants for construction of State veterans homes one-third below current year levels and does some other things that we are not happy about. It needlessly creates a political confrontation with the President by terminating the Corporation for National and Community Service, including the AmeriCorps program. Everyone on this floor knows the President is not going to sign this bill with that provision. For housing, it appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the administration. It cuts Community Development Block Grants $276 million below the current year level and $395 million below the President's request. It freezes funding for homeless assistance. It provides a number of other cuts on the environmental front and on the NASA front. I happen to believe the most serious cut of all in terms of our long- term economic health is what this bill does to the National Science Foundation because it falls short of the President's request by $508 billion. And I think it is essential to understand that the National Science Foundation does much of the basic scientific research, upon which all our other technological and medical progress is based. We have had economists estimate that at least half of our economic productivity in the past 50 years can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported that innovation. And yet, this bill is a giant missed opportunity because it cuts the President's budget with respect to that program. It falls $508 million below the President's request. And then, in addition, it takes actions which, in concert with other actions taken by other subcommittees, slowly but surely fences in the Justice Department so that neither they nor any other agency of Government can mount an effective lawsuit against the tobacco companies for lying through their teeth to the American people for the past 40 years about whether or not their product caused cancer. And so, the Government has shelled out billions of dollars in Medicare, in veterans' health costs to deal with health consequences of that product and the lying selling of that product to the American people. And I think that needs to be corrected. So these are a number of reasons why, although I have profound respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and consider him to be one of the finest people in this institution, I cannot support the work product that the budget resolution has forced him to come up with. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding on my behalf, and I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for all the great effort and the great work that he has done as chairman of this subcommittee. I want to thank, also, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has teamed up with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to make this thing work. I want to further thank the staff, led by Frank Cushing, for all the great efforts that they have made on this legislation. It is not easy, and I know that; and most people do not know how much time staff puts into the effort that brings forth a bill. This appropriations bill is unique in that it covers an array of diverse agencies ranging from the Veterans Administration to the EPA. And there is a lot of distance in between. It is not an easy task to bring this wide range of interest into a single bill. However, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, have a working relationship that I think makes this all possible. H.R. 4635 is a good bill and keeps us within the budget resolution. I would point out that the product before us contains, as undoubtedly has been commented on, no Member earmarks. In this respect, it is eminently fair because there are no winners or losers. The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD bill is a fair piece of legislation produced under very difficult circumstances and is within, again, the budget resolution. It responsibly provides a $1.3-billion increase for veterans' medical health care, fully funds section 8 housing, and provides sound investments in research-intensive agencies, such as NASA and, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) just mentioned, the National Science Foundation. As this process moves forward, there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to offer their suggestions and amendments before the President finally signs the bill. I would implore my colleagues not to let perfection be the enemy of good. This is a good and responsible bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support it. Again, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is to be saluted for crafting this piece of legislation under these circumstances. He has worked in good faith with the ranking member on the other side in a bipartisan spirit to form a bill that the House has now before it. My colleagues, this is a fair bill and there will be time to strengthen it further as the process moves along. So I urge its support. [[Page H4617]] Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I speak today on one part of the bill before us, title I, the bill funding the Department of Administration, and I speak as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in this House. Now, all of us on this side of the aisle have spoken of our deep respect for the chair, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), but we also have taken issue with the sense that we are doing all we can do in this bill, in this case for our Nation's veterans. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) talks in a passive sense that we have been allocated a number. This is an active decision by this House to allocate certain figures, and this House can do what it will with regard to the budget. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out, we have spoken about our priorities. This budget ranks veterans' affairs, I am afraid, very low in the priorities. The chair said that this is fully funded, medical care for our veterans is fully funded. I am not sure what that means, but I would challenge my colleagues to go to any town hall meeting of veterans in this Nation and tell them that their benefits and their health care is fully funded. The gentleman from Michigan said this is a good and responsible budget. I take issue. It is not a good budget. It is an irresponsible budget. We are reneging on our commitment to our Nation's veterans, Mr. Speaker. We have asked our veterans to sacrifice in war. When we had deficits, we asked our veterans to take cuts because we had to share the sacrifice of cutting those deficits. But now that we have surpluses, it is time to make up on those commitments and start fulfilling those commitments. Many of our national cemeteries are a national disgrace. The waiting list for our veterans to see medical specialists goes months and months and months to get adjudication. Their benefits claims may take years. This is not a good and responsible budget. We are falling behind, Mr. Speaker, on medical research for veterans. We are falling behind on our commitment to fund our State veterans' homes. We are falling behind on helping our homeless veterans. We are falling behind on providing educational benefits to those veterans. {time} 1645 The Montgomery GI bill is almost worthless in terms of its spending power in today's market. I am going to submit amendments, Mr. Chairman, to cover some of these shortcomings, but I want to speak on a couple now. We are not adequately meeting the benefit and health care needs of veterans who served in the Gulf War and who now suffer from various diagnosed and undiagnosed disabilities. It has been almost 10 years, Mr. Chairman, since the men and women of our Armed Forces were sent to the gulf, yet they do not know what caused their illness, and we have no treatment for it. We must not relax our efforts to fund necessary and appropriate research. This budget does virtually nothing for those veterans. I speak today, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Independent Budget, a budget that was propounded by a coalition of all the veterans organizations in this Nation. It is a responsible, professional budget. They show that this budget falls behind on our commitment by a minimum of $1.5 billion. It points out that as our veteran population ages, the need for long-term care increases. One means of providing that is through our funding of State veterans homes. In fact, a new home just opened in my congressional district; and already there is a waiting list of hundreds and hundreds. Other areas should have the same opportunity as the veterans in my San Diego region with the opening of this new home. Yet this budget has a decrease in funding for State homes. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's veterans require an educational benefit that will actually allow them to attend college. I will propose such an amendment when the time comes. We have fallen behind on trying to deal with our homeless veterans. Thirty to 40 percent of those on the street are veterans. This is no way to treat those who served for us. We should increase that. This budget does not. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a group of people in this Nation who served during World War II and were drafted into Armed Forces, Filipino veterans who helped us win the war in the Pacific. They are in their 70s and 80s. We need to provide them the health care that was taken away by this Congress more than 50 years ago. $30 million is all that is required to provide this health care. I will submit an amendment to do just that. Mr. Chairman, we are falling farther and farther behind with this budget. It is time to reverse our priorities. It is time to recognize the heroism and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Let us truly fully fund this budget. Let us truly make this a good and responsible budget. Let us do better for our Nation's veterans. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to discuss some of the issues that were just raised. I will be brief. I am not going to fight every battle and counter every argument, but I do think it needs to be said that we are not falling behind. We are not falling behind in our commitments to our veterans. In fact, the strides that this Congress has made in the last 2 years, $1.7 billion last year, almost $1.4 billion this year, that is over a $3 billion commitment in a $20 billion health care allocation. That is a profound commitment to our veterans. I do not believe any Congress in the recent or distant past has made that sort of commitment. I strongly disagree with the gentleman's statement that we are falling behind. If anything, we are quickly catching up if not pulling ahead. But to say we are falling behind, I think, gives grist for the mill for those uninformed people out there who are saying we are not keeping our commitments to the veteran. I strongly disagree. On the issue of the G.I. Bill, those benefits are mandatory. The gentleman sits on the committee of authorization. That is where that issue belongs, not here in the committee on appropriations. Those are mandatory benefits, not within our purview to determine allocation of funds. It is mandatory. Lastly, the GAO study says that the Veterans Administration is wasting $1 million a day through poor administration. That is over $300 million a year wasted. We cannot afford to have that waste continue. Clearly, the Congress can do better; but the administration can, too. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done a fine job with the resources he has available and certainly the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, who has done all that he can to bring this bill to the floor; but it is not a good bill. I just want to reiterate what I have said over and over again as a part of the Committee on Appropriations. The budget is woefully underfunded. At a time when America's prosperity is well, when the budget surpluses are higher than they ever have been or ever thought to be at this time in the process, we are dealing with a budget process in a very important veterans budget, housing budget and EPA budget that is going lacking. Why is that? Well, some months ago, this Congress passed in a very partisan way 302(b) allocations which are the bottom line numbers that each of these budgets reflect. So we find ourselves fighting over very important programs that need to be funded. Veterans who have served this country and served well ought to have full coverage and ought to be able to have their medical needs met. They ought not be homeless in our country and many of them are. They ought to be able to have the drug treatment necessary that they be fine citizens, having worked and saved this [[Page H4618]] country from various battles across the history of our country. But it is not funded properly. In this time of budget surpluses, if we cannot do it now, when will we do it? I think it is a travesty that this bill is on the floor with shortages in homelessness, medical care, and treatment for veterans in our country who have served this country well. I am also disturbed that our housing, public housing, those in America, the least of these who find themselves living in public housing are now seeing cuts at a time when we were building on public housing, at a time when they were being renovated, revitalized, at a time when the capital count was at one time meeting those needs and now falling sorely behind. In 1995, the public housing budget was $3.7 billion. This budget today calls for $2.8 billion. From $3.7 billion to today $2.8 billion, the public housing needs are not being met. The section 8 vouchers, there is a backlog of need in my district, and I am sure in many others who need section 8 vouchers. One of the previous speakers said that we are fully funding section 8 vouchers. We are funding those who already have it, but we are not at all addressing the need of the backlog, some hundreds in my own district who have applied for and are waiting for decent, free housing, free from crime, free from other kinds of negative things in our budget. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for what he has done and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), but it is really not enough. We have got to be realistic with these budgets. There are children, there are families who need us to stand up to our responsibility. If we look at veterans coverage, it is lacking. In public housing needs, it is lacking. We can do better in this Congress. I would hope that as we go through the process, as we get through conference, and everybody says, Wait till we get to conference, it is going to be better, it is our responsibility today, we ought not have to wait until we get to conference. But, Mr. Chairman, as we leave and this bill is on the floor, we will be debating it much of this evening, let us remember those veterans, those poor people who need us to speak out for them. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) because I think they probably did a competent job with what they had to work with. But I still believe that in addition to the veterans and the housing needs, this bill also represents a lost opportunity in research. The President proposed a historic budget increase for the National Science Foundation this year. The increase was intended to bolster the activities of an agency with a critically important role in sustaining the Nation's capabilities in science and engineering research and education. The bill cuts the amount of the request by more than $500 million. This is shortsighted and inconsistent with the previous actions of the House. It also ignores the well-known connection between research and economic development. I characterize the bill as shortsighted because it has now been shown that public support for basic research in science and engineering is an investment in the future economy and in the well- being of our citizens. Over the past 50 years, half of U.S. economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the science that has supported it. The social rate of return for basic research performed at academic institutions has been found to be at least 28 percent. Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns to the economy that far exceed the public investment. The recent example of the Internet, which emerged from research projects funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Science Foundation strikingly illustrates the true investment nature of such research expenditures. What then will be the effects of the anemic increase provided for the National Science Foundation by this bill? The most important is also the least quantifiable, that is, the lost opportunities due to research ideas that are not pursued. Last year alone, the National Science Foundation could not fund 3,800 proposals that received very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. The budget increase requested for fiscal year 2001 has greatly reduced the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to rejection because of inadequate budgets. Nearly half of the increase in the fiscal year 2001 National Science Foundation budget proposal was designated for the core research programs of the foundation. This new funding would increase average grant size and duration as well as increasing the number of new awards. Inflation has reduced the relative value of National Science Foundation awards, thereby adding to the overhead burden placed on the academic research community. That is, researchers must generate multiple proposals to obtain adequate funding for their research projects. If NSF were to be allowed to reach its goal of increasing average grant size to $108,000 and grant duration to 3 years, it estimates the savings in the cost of research proposal preparation alone would be $50 million. Of course, this is only a portion of the potential savings since it does not include reductions in the time for proposal reviews and the reduced cost to universities from administering these few grants. Overall, the cuts from proposed funding levels in the bill will result in more than 4,000 fewer awards for state-of-the-art research and education activities. This reduction will curtail investments in exciting, cutting-edge research initiatives, such as information technology, the nanoscale science and engineering, and environmental research. The effect will be to slow the development of new discoveries with immense potential to generate significant benefits to society. The reduction in funding also translates into almost 18,000 fewer researchers, educators, and students receiving NSF support. This is a direct, and negative, effect on the shortages projected in the high- tech workforce. It will reduce the number of well-trained scientists and engineers needed for the Nation's future. Finally, I feel I must point out the inconsistency between the funding provided by the bill for NSF and the interest expressed by many Members of this House in the development and widespread use of information technology. In February the House passed H.R. 2086 by acclamation. This bill authorizes nearly $5 billion over four years among seven agencies for information technology research. NSF was the lead agency of the multi- agency initiative and was provided a major portion of the resources. H.R. 4635 cuts the requests for NSF's part of this initiative by over $154 million, or by more than 20 percent. The need for the major new investment in information technology research was advocated by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. This committee stated that: ``Unless immediate steps are taken to reinvigorate federal research in this critical area, we believe there will be a significant reduction in the rate of economic progress over the coming decades.'' I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for the research that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials, environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent industries. The economic growth that has been fueled by advances in basic research will be endangered because of the failure of this bill to provide adequate resources for the math, science, and engineering research and education activities of the National Science Foundation. This is shameful and irresponsible. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along, that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget within the VA [[Page H4619]] system. The President's budget proposed that the first $350 million collected as a result of changes under the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act signed into law and passed last year be returned to the Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration. {time} 1700 This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with the Vietnam-Era part of our history. In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However, during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand was not there. Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey, the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the national average. The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and this is a budget that points us in the right direction. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we in the Congress are constantly debating what our priorities ought to be, and 2 weeks ago this House adopted legislation to eliminate the estate tax. And in doing that, we gave, in effect, $200 billion to around 400 families. That was our judgment in this House. It was not a judgment I agreed with, but it was, nevertheless, the judgment of this House. In this bill that is before us there is a rider that we will seek to strike, and that rider would prevent use of funds to pursue litigation against the tobacco industry. Well, some people think that if we get a judgment against the tobacco industry, that could bring in $300 billion to pay back the Federal Government for expenses due to the misconduct of that industry. Mr. Chairman, well, if that rider does not get taken out of this bill and that lawsuit is stopped, in the course of a couple of weeks we will have given $200 billion to 400 families by eliminating the estate tax, and we will refuse to bring in potentially $300 billion that can be used for veterans' health, Indian health services, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, so many things where we are always saying we do not have the money to fund it. The amendment that we are going to be offering with a number of our colleagues would strike that rider, and so there would be no misunderstanding about it. That amendment would provide that funds that would otherwise go into the account in the veterans' health program for management and legal expenses would be used for pursuing litigation against the tobacco industry which would bring many, many, many times over that amount back to the veterans' health program. Specifically, we do not use any funds out of the veterans' health program, but only funds allocated for legal expenses. This separate fund would be then allocated to pursue the lawsuit, and all of the veterans' groups want that lawsuit to be pursued. They know how important it is to get funds that are not enough to meet their needs into the veterans' health priorities. We have explicit support from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Disabled War Veterans, the Paralyzed War Veterans for our amendment; and all of the groups want this lawsuit to go forward. Let me point out that if we strike this rider we not only have the support of the veterans' organizations, but it will have no effect at all on the Medicaid settlement with the States or on retailers in this country. The only ones who are being sued are the manufacturers of tobacco products who for decades have mislead the American people and the veterans into starting to smoke and continuing to smoke. They not only mislead about the dangers of cigarettes, they mislead them about the nicotine addiction; and they not only did that, they manipulated the nicotine levels to keep people smoking. I would hope that when we get into the opportunity for amendments, that Members on both sides of the aisle will join us in striking that rider that would prohibit use of funds to recover money that can be used for veterans' health care from the tobacco industry. It is only to the benefit of everyone that this amendment go forward, and we will hear more about it later. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 30 seconds remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has the right to close. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have, I think, many requests that would be more than 30 seconds; and, therefore, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, a couple of the Members from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), suggested the need for more NSF funding, the National Science Foundation. I agree. Yet one of the Members from your side of the aisle is suggesting that we take money, additional money out of NSF and put it into HUD. Hopefully in this appropriation bill, before it is finished, we can find more money to accommodate basic research. Basic research in this country has been instrumental in creating products and increasing our competitive position. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, I introduced H.R. 4500 that authorizes a 17 percent increase in NSF funding. Let us not shortchange basic research that has served us so well. Let us make sure we do not take more money out of the NSF funding, and let us look for additional funding to help make sure that the basic research that has helped make this country great, that has been vital to increasing our productivity, continues as one of our priorities. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments to make. I think we can conclude our general debate and move into amendments. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following tables for the Record. [[Page H4620]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.001 [[Page H4621]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.002 [[Page H4622]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.003 [[Page H4623]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.004 [[Page H4624]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19JN00.005 [[Page H4625]] Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to highlight several features of this legislation that are important to our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's reformulated gasoline mandate. national science foundation Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17, 2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level. While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million, NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level requested, especially given the large increases planned for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Indeed, I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical research be more widely recognized. Today, we are in the midst of one of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes much to technological changes driven by the basic scientific research conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research supported by NSF. Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and computational sciences as the biological sciences. I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular area or areas relative to other.'' If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area, I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs. national aeronautics and space administration While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714 billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year. I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully answered. As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of risk. Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to move our space program to the next level of achievement. The Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate safeguards to protect the federal investment. I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that goal because I believe the program is important. EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost, potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage. Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel, have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any impact on improving air quality. Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers, and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near. EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions on this issue. Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, the Fiscal Year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. H.R. 4635, which we are considering today is woefully inadequate and fails to address America's needs in housing, economic development, veterans, and science and technology programs. This is particularly distressing in these times of unprecedented prosperity and rising surpluses. Among many unacceptable funding provisions, the bill freezes funding for veterans medical research, cuts grants for construction of state veterans homes $30 million below the current year level, and provides $56 million less than requested to improve processing of applications for benefits. The bill appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing assistance vouchers proposed by the Administration. Further, it cuts the Community Development Block Grant by $275 million below the current year level. And while it provides an increase for research at the National Science Foundation, it falls short of the President's requested increased by $508 million. The bill also fails to adequately provide for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Science and Technology programs, which the bill underfunds by $323 million. These cuts I believe would jeopardize the future of our space research programs, including programs directed at solving problems here on earth, that are pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge about our universe. Even more distressing, the bill only appropriates $300 million of the $2.9 billion requested by the Administration for the Federal Emer