[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11726-11815]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4635.
{time} 1245
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry
independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Pease in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
January 20, 2000, the bill was open for amendment from page 57, line
22, to page 58 line 14.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
shall be in order, except pro forma amendments offered by the chairman
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or
their designees and the following further amendments, which may be
offered only by the Member designated in the order of the House or a
designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee,
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
The following additional amendments, debatable for 10 minutes:
An amendment by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) regarding VA
mental illness research;
An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell)
regarding the VA Right To Know Act;
An amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) regarding
EPA estuary funding;
An amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) regarding the
space station;
The amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 7, 8, 13,
14, 15, 17, 33, 41 and 43.
The following additional amendments debatable for 20 minutes:
An amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) regarding VA
health and research;
The amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 23, 34,
and 35; and,
The following additional amendments debatable for 30 minutes:
An amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) regarding
NSF;
An amendment by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) regarding
clean air;
An amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) regarding FEMA;
An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
regarding the Kyoto Protocol;
And the amendments printed in the Congressional Record numbered 3, 4,
24, 25, and 39.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
environmental programs and management
For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
services as authorized
[[Page 11727]]
by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed
the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for
senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft;
purchase of reprints; library memberships in societies or
associations which issue publications to members only or at a
price to members lower than to subscribers who are not
members; construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation,
and renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per
project; and not to exceed $6,000 for official reception and
representation expenses, $1,900,000,000, which shall remain
available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That none of
the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to propose
or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the
purpose of implementation, or in preparation for
implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on
December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference of
the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate
for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution,
and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25
of the Protocol: Provided further, That none of the funds
made available in this Act may be used to implement or
administer the interim guidance issued on February 5, 1998,
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and designated as the
``Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative
Complaints Challenging Permits'' with respect to complaints
filed under such title after October 21, 1998, and until
guidance is finalized. Nothing in this proviso may be
construed to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency
from developing or issuing final guidance relating to title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available in this or any prior Act may
be used to make a final determination on or implement any new
rule relative to the Proposed Revisions to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal
Antidegradation Policy and the Proposed Revisions to the
Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning
Total Maximum Daily Loads, published in the Federal Register
on August 23, 1999.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Saxton
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Saxton:
Page 59, line 6, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $33,900,000)''.
Page 74, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $33,900,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, January
20, 2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase the
funding by $33.9 million under the Environmental Protection Agency's
Environmental Programs and Management Account to fund the National
Estuary Program.
Mr. Chairman, the National Estuary Program has been a tremendous
success, but is drastically underfunded. This year's appropriation
provides approximately $18 million for this purpose, and it is
inadequate to fund the National Estuary Program for the 28 estuaries
that are included in the program.
If anyone is from almost any coastal State where there is a high
density population in a coastal area you will find that your estuaries
are under stress. And the National Estuary Program, which came into
being a number of years ago, was set up to provide for a partnership
arrangement between the Federal Government and Federal dollars and
State and local people who know well the problems involving their
estuaries and who know well how to study and fashion solutions for
various types of estuarine problems.
I first became aware of this program with the trip to Narragansett
Bay, which was part of the National Estuary Program, a number of years
ago. Then Representative Claudine Schneider introduced me to the
problems of Narragansett Bay; and now, 10 years later, because of the
National Estuary Program, Narragansett Bay is well on its way to
recovery. I wish I could say the same was true for all of the estuaries
that are included in the National Estuary Program, but such is simply
not the case.
We need to move forward with this program, and we need to fashion a
financial program that will adequately take care of these needs.
Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing coastal
environments. With the establishment of this program as section 320 of
the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Water Act amendments of 1987, this
program was passed by the House on May 8, 2000, to reauthorize it. We
also authorized an appropriation of $50 million for fiscal year 2001
for the purpose of facilitating the State and local governments
preparation of the Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan, CCMPs,
for threatened and impaired estuaries.
This is a simple, straightforward program that addresses a variety of
unique needs of these stressed bodies of water. I rise to urge an aye
vote on this amendment, as I think it is extremely important to coastal
areas, coastal States, and the inhabitants thereof.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am reluctantly opposed to the Saxton amendment. The
gentleman has shown through proven leadership throughout his years in
the Congress a dedication to, certainly the New Jersey shoreline and
the estuaries all over the country, which as we know are the most
productive areas of our waters in terms of wildlife and fish life.
While I am sympathetic to the amendment of the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), I would have to say that the estuary program is
fully funded at the President's request level. In fact, we have taken
great pains to fully fund this program every year. For fiscal year
2001, the program would receive almost $17 million, a slight decrease
from last year's level of $18 million, an increase over the 1999 level
of $16.5 million.
In addition to this general estuary program, we also fund through
EPA's specific estuary-related programs for wetlands, including South
Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Long Island Sound,
Pacific Northwest, and Lake Champlain. Together these programs total
over $63 million for each of year 2000 and 2001.
The Saxton amendment would nearly triple what we now have provided
for this program. In addition, the Saxton amendment would take funds,
important funds from NASA and we have already taken $55 million out of
NASA in the production of this bill through the amendments.
This cut would further reduce their ability to adequately operate
programs, so I would urge a no vote on the Saxton amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
On page 59, line 19, after the word ``Protocol'', insert:
Provided further, That any limitation imposed under this Act
on funds made available by this Act for the Environmental
Protection Agency shall not apply to activities specified in
the previous proviso related to the Kyoto Protocol which are
otherwise authorized by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, of Tuesday, June
20, 2000, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the amendment be read?
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is considered as read. Without objection,
the Clerk can read the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 11728]]
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is short and clear. It simply affirms the
agreement which has been in effect the last 2 years after painstaking
negotiations by the House, the Senate, and the executive branch in
passing the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD bill.
Mr. Chairman, the final fiscal VA-HUD conference committee bill
contained limitation language which is used again in this year's bill.
The accompanying conference report language was only approved after
extensive negotiation.
But the conferees specifically agreed, and I quote in part: ``The
conferees recognize that there are longstanding energy research
programs which could have positive effects on energy use and the
environment. The conferees do not intend to preclude these programs
from proceeding, provided that they have been funded and approved by
Congress.''
For fiscal 2001 again we have the same bill language as fiscal 1999
and fiscal 2000, but the report language this year has been greatly
changed and goes far beyond the carefully negotiated fiscal 1999
conference agreement.
Without my amendment, this report language can be construed to limit
even longstanding authorized and funded programs, our renewable energy
research and development programs to promote clean power, our program
to develop new homes that are 50 percent more energy efficient and save
families dollars, our program to reduce methane emissions because
methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases, and even the
Clean Air Act which became law with the initiative and strong support
of President Nixon a generation ago.
All are geared towards reducing greenhouse gases and have been
approved and funded by this Congress, but could be jeopardized.
Mr. Chairman, the language of my amendment allows the EPA to operate
as it has over the last 2 years under the fiscal 1999 VA-HUD conference
agreement and the accompanying negotiated report language. Mr.
Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is different than the
amendment that we had previously. Now, the amendment that was given to
me previously provided a little bit different picture than what I think
this amendment does. We like the idea that we are now dealing with
activities which have been the thing that we have been looking at for a
long time.
If I am not mistaken, and I would like some clarification from the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the language that we were
prepared to accept was a slightly different variation from what the
gentleman has included here.
I will read the language, not that the gentleman needs to know; but
this body needs to know exactly what was inserted in your previous
language, and it said ``provided further that any limitation imposed
under this act on funds made available by this act for the
Environmental Protection Agency shall not apply to activities related
to the Kyoto Protocol which are otherwise authorized by law.''
I ask the gentleman to help me, if he will, but my understanding is
that now the gentleman has changed this to saying in the third line
``shall not apply to activities specified in the previous proviso
related to the Kyoto Protocol.''
I ask the gentleman what exactly has the gentleman changed here from
the previous wording?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we were apprised last night that the language as the
gentleman has read it, in fact, left a question of interpretation as to
what the words ``activities related to the Kyoto Protocol'' would mean.
And the Clerks advised me and others who were interested in this that
there would be no ambiguity if the word related was tied to the very
provisions that are in the previous proviso, which is, of course, the
provided further proviso that gives the bill language as it has stood,
and that, therefore, it would be limited very carefully to those items.
{time} 1300
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman suggested that we were
concerned about the wording in the previous amendment? Who was
concerned? Because we showed no such concern.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
clerks were concerned it was ambiguous, the language with the word
``related,'' and there would be some question to determine what was
related to the proviso. In this instance, it is clearly tied to those
items which are listed in the previous proviso, but are also authorized
and funded by previous law.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me proceed
with my comments, because I do want to resolve this in a fashion that
is acceptable. My immediate view was, why was the language changed? No
one presented that change to me. So let me proceed with my comments. I
appreciate the gentleman's explanation of why the change, but it
certainly was not one that came from our side.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to congratulate the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan), and the others for the recognition of the original and
enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now,
specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the
fatally flawed, in my judgment, unratified, Kyoto Protocol.
I am grateful for the acknowledgment of the administration's plea for
clarification. The whole Nation I think needs to hear the plea of this
administration in the words of the coordinator of all environmental
policy for this administration, George Frampton. In his position as
acting chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, on March 1 of
this year and on behalf of the administration, he stated this before
the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee: ``Just to finish our
dialogue here, my point was that it is the very uncertainty about the
scope of the language which gives rise to our wanting to not have the
continuation of this uncertainty next year.''
Mr. Chairman, I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey) when he stated to the administration, ``You're nuts,'' upon
learning of the fatally flawed Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore
negotiated.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his focus on the activities.
I think that is important, of this administration, both authorized and
unauthorized.
As I read this amendment, it appears to be now fully consistent with
the provision that has been signed by President Clinton in current
appropriations laws. First, no agency, including EPA, can proceed with
activities that are not authorized or not funded; second, no new
authority is granted to EPA; third, since neither the United Nations
framework convention on climate change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self-
executing, and I repeat that, they are not self-executing, specific
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program or
initiative; fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
Mr. Chairman, I have had numerous communications with key agencies
about the propriety of some of their activities. In most cases there
has been a reasoned response that indicates there is recognition that
some activities can cross the line and be implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol.
Apparently, President Clinton agrees with us, since he has been clear
in his statements that he has no intention of implementing the Kyoto
Protocol before it is ratified by the U.S. Senate. I think we have to
assure the American taxpayers that they will not pay the bill for
activities that are not legal.
In my view, this amendment, after looking at it a second time, the
second
[[Page 11729]]
amendment prepared by the presenter, is consistent with the position
that we have been taking since 1998; and we all know the EPA has been
challenged by the courts on their abuse of the Clean Air Act, Safe
Drinking Water Law, and an effort to use internal guidance in
contravention of legal requirements. Because of the recent activities
of the EPA, I just wanted to take this time to thoroughly and carefully
review this bill language and consider the content of report language
that will be necessary to explain it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to again say to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), I do
think you are focusing on the kernel here that we have to focus on; and
in that regard, I do want to offer some time to my colleagues to
comment as well, and I am sure the gentleman does as well.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2000.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations.
Dear Mr. Chairman. We write to express our strong support
for the inclusion of the Knollenberg provision in the Foreign
Operations and Commerce, State and Justice Appropriations
bills for Fiscal Year 2001. This same provision has also been
adopted in report language contained in the Subcommittee
Report drafted by the Commerce, Justice, and State
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
As you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto
Climate Change Protocol sometime ago but decided not to
submit this treaty to the United States Senate for
ratification. The Protocol places severe restrictions on the
United States while exempting most countries, including
China, India, and Brazil, from taking any measures to reduce
carbon emissions. The Administration undertook this course of
action despite unanimous support in the United States Senate
for the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all
nations to the Protocol and on the condition that it not
adversely impact the economy of the United States.
We believe that the Knollenberg provision is required to
preserve the Congress's authority to ratify treaties prior to
their implementation. We are also concerned that actions
taken by several Federal agencies, including the State
Department and the Agency for International Development,
constitute the implementation of this treaty before its
submission to Congress as required by the Constitution of the
United States. The Knollenberg provision is required to block
any further implementation of the proposed treaty by the
executive branch until Congress addresses this matter. We
wish to be clear that this provision will not in any way
inhibit the ability of the Administration to negotiate
international treaties or conduct the foreign policy of the
United States. Rather, this provision seeks to preserve the
proper consultation and review process with regard to
international agreements that has been reserved to the
Congress by the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you for your kind consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman.
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
____
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, October 5, 1999.
Hon. David M. McIntosh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government
Reform.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based
on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by
the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call
my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to
Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation
Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The
Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean
Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The
latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the
1990 amendments.
First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any
provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas,
such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address
global climate change. The House, however, did include
provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed
amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points
out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and
global warming, along with provisions implementing the
Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol
related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate
conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of
November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and
819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions
separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers
to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public Law
does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all
of the provisions included the Public Law.
One of these free-standing provisions, section 821,
entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases
Contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United
States Code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires
regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide
emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V''
of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be
reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon
dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose.
Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled
``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time
by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no
regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title
amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c)
through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution
Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory
strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.''
While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon
dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never
agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for
regulatory or other purposes.
Based on my review of this history and my recollection of
the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the
House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory
provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced
section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas
emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air
Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the
United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990
the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately
led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was
ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the
Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing,
and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation
authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse
gases.
I hope that this is responsive.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 10, 2000.
Hon. Gary S. Guzy,
General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency.
Dear Mr. Guzy: Thank you for your February 16, 2000 letter
responding to our December 10, 1999 letter examining the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) legal authority
with respect to carbon dioxide (CO2). After
studying your answers to our questions, we are more convinced
than ever that the Clean Air Act (CAA) does not authorize EPA
to regulate CO2. Indeed, we find it amazing that
EPA claims authority to regulate CO2 when the
legislative history of the CAA--particularly in 1990--does
not support such a claim and when Congress, since 1978, has
consistently enacted only non-regulatory laws on climate
change and greenhouse gases. Furthermore, some of your
answers asserting that EPA has not yet considered certain
basic legal issues are not credible.
To make clear why your February 16th letter has only
reinforced our conviction that EPA may not lawfully regulate
CO2, we review below each of your answers in the
order of the questions posed.
Your response to Q1 of our December 10th letter addresses
an argument we pointedly and explicitly did not make and
sidesteps the argument we did make. You write: ``As we stated
previously, specific mention of a pollutant in a statutory
provision is not a necessary prerequisite to regulation under
many CAA statutory provisions.'' We agreed with this
observation in Q3 of our October l4th letter and again in Q1
of our December 10th letter, where we acknowledge that the
CAA sensibly allows EPA to regulate substances not
specifically mentioned in the CAA when such regulation is
necessary to ``fill in gaps'' in existing regulatory
programs. Yet you repeat that observation as though we had
taken the position that EPA may not regulate any substance
unless it is listed in a regulatory provision of the CAA.
Our point was different, to wit: Congress was quite
familiar with the theory of human-induced global warming when
it amended the CAA in 1990; and, consequently, the fact that
the CAA nowhere lists CO2 as a substance to be
regulated is ``evidence'' (note: we did not say proof) that
Congress chose not to authorize EPA to launch a regulatory
global warming mitigation program. EPA's assertion, that the
absence of CO2 from all CAA regulatory provisions furnishes
no evidence against EPA's claim that it may regulate
CO2, strikes us as unreasonable, especially in
light of Congress' practice, in amendment after amendment to
the CAA, of specifically designating substances for
regulation.
[[Page 11730]]
In addition, we are troubled by the apparent implication of
your statement, ``Congress did not in 1990 limit the
potential applicability of any of the CAA regulatory
provisions to CO2.'' You seem to suggest that, if
Congress did not expressly forbid EPA from regulating
CO2, EPA must be presumed to have such power. That
implication, we think, contradicts the core premise of
administrative law, namely, that agencies have no inherent
regulatory power, only that which Congress intentionally and
specifically delegates.
We do not find persuasive your response to Q2 of our
December 10th letter, We asked, ``if Congress intended to
delegate to EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases,
why did it admonish EPA not to assume such authority in the
only CAA provisions [sections 103(g) and 602(e)] dealing with
CO2 and global warming?'' You answer that those
sections are nonregulatory, and that Congress ``would not
intend the Agency to regulate substances under authorities
provided for nonregulatory activities.'' You then conclude
that the admonitory language of those provisions ``does not
directly or indirectly limit the regulatory authorities
provided to the Agency elsewhere in the Act.'' We agree that
the admonitory language does not repeal by implication any
existing authority provided elsewhere in the CAA. However, we
do not agree that, when Congress enacted that language, it
was merely affirming a tautology (i.e., nonregulatory
authorities cannot authorize regulatory programs). It is far
more likely that Congress meant to caution EPA against
assuming an authority that does not in fact exist.
Please again recall the legislative history surrounding
Title VI. When Congress enacted Title VI, it also rejected a
Senate version known as Title VII, the ``Stratospheric Ozone
and Climate Protection Act,'' which would have required EPA
to regulate greenhouse gases. The admonitory language of
section 602(e) states that EPA's study of the global warming
potential of ozone-depleting substances ``shall not be
construed to be the basis of any additional regulation under
this chapter [i.e., the CAA].'' This is very significant
because it means Congress was not content just to reject
Title VII. Congress also thought it necessary to state in
Title VI that it was in no way authorizing a greenhouse gas
regulatory scheme.
The admonitory language of section 103(g) is also worth
quoting. EPA's whole case boils down to the argument that
section 103(g) refers to CO2 as an ``air
pollutant,'' and the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate air
pollutants. This argument is incredibly weak. To begin with,
under section 302(g) of the CAA, the term ``air pollutant''
does not automatically apply to any substance emitted into
the ambient air. Such a substance must also be an ``air
pollution agent or combination of such agents.'' EPA has
never determined that CO2 is an air pollution
``agent.'' More importantly, the admonitory language of
section 103(g) is unequivocal: ``Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to authorize the imposition on any person
of air pollution control requirements'' (emphasis added). If
nothing in section 103(g) shall be construed to authorize the
imposition of air pollution control requirements, then the
reference therein to CO2 as a ``pollutant'' should
not be construed to be a basis for regulatory action. EPA's
case is further undermined by Congressman John Dingell's
commentary on the legislative history connected with section
103(g). In his October 5, 1999 letter to Chairman McIntosh,
Rep. Dingell wrote: ``While it [section 103(g)] refers, as
noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a
`pollutant,' House and Senate conferees never agreed to
designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for regulatory
purposes.''
We find disturbing your response to Q3 of our December 10th
letter. Citing the very passage of Chevron v. NRDC quoted by
EPA in its December 1st letter, we asked whether there was
not a vital, practical distinction between EPA's filling a
``gap left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress'' in a
``congressionally created . . . program'' and EPA's creating
new programs without express Congressional authorization.
Your answers to Q3(a) and N do not acknowledge that EPA is in
any meaningful way constrained by the distinction between
filling gaps and creating programs.
In addition, we believe your answer to Q3(c) lacks
credibility. We asked whether EPA's authority to control
substances based upon their global warming potential ``is as
clear and certain and unambiguous as EPA's authority to
control substances based upon their impact on ambient air
quality, their toxicity, or their potential to damage the
ozone layer.'' Rather than acknowledge the obvious (i.e.,
EPA's regulatory authority with respect to CO2
rests on a tortuous interpretation at best), you reply that
``EPA has not evaluated the strength of the technical and
legal basis for such findings under any particular provision
of the Act,'' because it has ``no current plans'' to regulate
CO2. While that statement is welcome assurance in
light of the Knollenberg limitation, it leaves a void as to
the legal basis for EPA's view of its authority.
Your answer to Q4 of our December 10th letter is similarly
nonresponsive. We noted that, under CAA section 112(b)(2),
EPA may not classify an ambient air pollutant like sulfur
dioxide (SO2) as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
unless it ``independently meets the listing criteria'' of
section 112. In Q4(a), we asked: ``What are the criteria for
listing under section 112 that SO2 and the other
ambient air pollutants do not independently meet?'' Your
reply corrects our formulation by pointing out that an
ambient air pollutant may be listed as a HAP only if it is an
ambient air pollutant ``precursor'' and ``meets the criteria
for listing under section 112(b)(2).'' However, you did not
state what those criteria are; you did not explain the
specific difference between an ambient air pollutant and a
HAP. In short, you did not answer our question. The reason,
we suspect, is that a clear statement of the criteria that a
substance must meet in order to be classified as a HAP would
also make clear that CO2 is unlike any of the
substances currently listed as HAPs. That, in turn, would
cast grave doubt on EPA's claim that section 112 is
``potentially applicable'' to CO2.
Your response to Q4(b) implies that EPA may actually have
greater flexibility to list CO2 as a HAP than any
section 108 (``ambient'') air pollutant, because
CO2 is not listed under section 108 and, thus, is
not subject to the qualification that it be a ``precursor.''
We disagree. The ambient air pollution program is the
foundation of the CAA. The fact that Congress and EPA did not
list CO2 under section 108 is evidence that
CO2 is not a ``pollutant'' in any substantive
meaning of the word. The HAPs program deals with substances
that typically are deadlier or more injurious than ambient
air pollutants. However, even at many times current
atmospheric levels, CO2 is a benign substance
compared to ambient air pollutants like lead, ozone, or
SO2. Tberefore, the fact that Congress and EPA
never listed CO2 as an ambient air pollutant is an
argument against CO2s ever being listed as a HAP.
Your responses to Q4(c) and (d) employ the same flawed
reasoning. Section 112(b) provides that no ozone-depleting
substance may be classified as a HAP ``solely due to its
adverse effects on the environment.'' Noting this
restriction, we asked: ``[D]oes it not stand to reason that
no greenhouse gas may be listed solely due to its adverse
environmental effect? Indeed, is not the exemption of
greenhouse gases from listing under section 112 even stronger
than that for ozone-depleting substances, inasmuch as the CAA
nowhere expressly authorized EPA to regulate greenhouse
gases?'' You replied: ``Since section 112 says nothing
precluding the listing of greenhouse gases (or, for that
matter, any other pollutants not regulated under Title VI) on
environmental grounds alone, EPA does not agree with the
conclusion in the last sentence of your question.'' Here
again you come close to saying that EPA may lawfully do
anything Congress has not expressly forbidden it to do. We
would suggest that Congress did not need to exempt greenhouse
gases from EPA's section 112 authority, because Congress
never gave EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases in the
first place.
We regard your brief response to Q5 to be a tacit admission
that the HAPs framework is unsuited to control substances
that deplete the ozone layer. You comment that ``Congress
included on the section 112(b)(2) list of HAPs several
substances that deplete the ozone layer (e.g., methyl
bromide, carbon-tetrachloride [CCL4].'' However,
this merely shows that some ozone-depleting substances (i.e.,
those that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, neurotoxic, etc.)
independently meet the criteria for listing under section
112. It does not prove that EPA could act effectively to
protect stratospheric ozone without new and separate
authority (e.g., Title VI). We also note that, in Title VI,
Congress did not declare any of the ozone-depleting
substances to be an ``air pollutant.'' This suggests that
EPA's authority with respect to ozone-depleting chemicals
comes from a specific grant by Congress, not from a
generalized authority to control substances emitted into the
air.
We regard your answer to Q6 as nonresponsive. We pointed
out that stratospheric ozone depletion is, by definition, a
phenomenon of the stratosphere, not of the ambient air, and
that it differs fundamentally from ambient air pollution in
both its causes and remedies. We therefore asked: ``In light
of the foregoing considerations, do you believe the NAAQS
[National Ambient Air Quality Standards] program has any
rational application to the issue of stratospheric ozone
depletion?'' You responded: ``Since Title VI adequately
addresses stratospheric ozone depletion, EPA has not had any
occasion or need to undertake an evaluation of the use of the
NAAQS program to address this problem.'' We believe that
Congress' enactment of Title VI is further evidence that the
CAA is a carefully structured statute with specific grants of
authority to accomplish specific (hence limited) objectives,
not an undifferentiated, unlimited authority to regulate any
source of any substance that happens to be emitted into the
air.
In Q7, we asked whether the NAAQS program, because it
targets local conditions of the ambient air, is unsuited to
address a global phenomenon of the troposphere, such as the
supposed enhancement of the greenhouse effect by industrial
emissions of CO2.''
[[Page 11731]]
You replied: ``EPA has not reached any conclusion on this
question because, as already noted, the Agency has no current
plans to propose regulations for CO4.'' We do not
think it necessary for EPA to start a rulemaking in order to
evaluate whether a particular portion of the CAA is suited to
control CO2 in the context of a global warming
mitigation program. We regard your answer as a tacit
admission that EPA is unable to rebut our argument.
In your answer to Q8, you state: ``There is nothing in the
text of section 302(h) and we have found nothing in its
history to support Mr. Glaser's speculation that the scope of
that provision was limited to local or regional air pollution
problems'' such as those arising from particulate pollution.
We disagree. The text in question refers to the effects of
pollution on ``weather, visibility and climate.'' As you note
in your answer to Q12, CO2 has never been
``associated with visibility concerns.'' Particulate
pollution, on the other hand, can impair visibility as well
as affect local or regional weather and climate. As to the
legislative history, the source of the phrase ``weather,
visibility and climate'' in the 1970 CAA Amendments would
seem to be the National Air Pollution Control
Administration's 1969 air quality criteria for particulates,
which discussed the interrelated impact of fine particles on
weather, visibility and ``climate near the ground'' (Air
Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Jan. 1969). The
climate effects referred to were not global but local and
regional in nature. In any event, we find nothing in the text
and legislative history of section 302(h) to suggest that
Congress intended that provision to address CO2 in
the context of the issue of global warming.
In Q9, we asked whether the NAAQS program is fundamentally
unsuited to address the issue of global warming, since there
seems to be no sensible way to set a NAAQS for
CO2. For example, a NAAQS for CO2 set
below current atmospheric levels would put the entire country
out of attainment, even if every power plant and factory were
to shut down. Conversely, a NAAQS for CO2 set
above current atmospheric levels would put the entire country
in attainment, even if U.S. coal consumption suddenly
doubled. You replied: ``Since EPA has no current plans to
propose regulations for CO2, the Agency has not
fully evaluated the possible applicability of various CAA
provisions for this purpose. At this point in time, your
question is entirely hypothetical.'' Whether ``hypothetical''
or not, our question points out that CO2 does not
seem to fit into the NAAQS framework. We regard your answer
as a tacit admission that EPA has no idea how to set a NAAQS
for CO2 in the context of a global warming
mitigation program.
In Q10, we noted that the attainment of a NAAQS for
CO2 would be impossible without extensive
international cooperation, and that EPA had not yet
determined whether CAA section 108 authorizes the designation
of nonattainment areas where attainment cannot be achieved
without international action. From these facts, we drew the
reasonable conclusion that, until EPA determines that the CAA
does grant such authority, it is ``premature'' for EPA to
claim that section 108 is ``potentially applicable'' to
CO2. You replied: ``Section 108 of the CAA
authorizes regulation of air pollutants if the criteria for
regulation under that provision are met. EPA has not yet
evaluated whether such criteria have been met for
CO2. Thus, at this time, we believe it is accurate
to state that section 108 (and other CAA provisions
authorizing regulation of air pollutants) are `potentially
applicable' to CO2''. We disagree. The mere fact
that EPA has not evaluated whether CO2 meets
section 108 criteria furnishes no evidence that section 108
is potentially applicable to CO2.
Before examining whether CO2 meets the criteria
for regulation under section 108, EPA would first have to
determine whether the CAA authorizes EPA to designate
nonattainment areas where attainment cannot be achieved
without international action. Also, as noted above, before
examining whether CO2 meets section 108 criteria,
EPA would have to resolve the basic conceptual issue of
whether setting a NAAQS for CO2 is possible
without putting the entire country either in attainment or
out of attainment. Since EPA has not resolved these threshold
questions, it is disingenuous to claim that section 108 is
``potentially applicable'' to CO2. The most EPA
can honestly say at this point is that it does not know
whether section 108 could be found to be applicable to
CO2.
In Q11, noting that unilateral CO2 emissions
reductions by the United States would have no measurable
effect on global climate change, we asked whether the NAAQS
program can have any application to CO2 outside
the context of an international regulatory regime, such as
the Kyoto Protocol, since CAA section 109(b) requires the
Administrator to adopt NAAQS that are ``requisite to
protect'' public health and welfare. You replied; ``The Clean
Air Act does not dictate that EPA must be able to address all
sources of a particular air pollution problem before it may
address any of those sources. Rather, EPA may address some
sources that `contribute' to a problem even if it cannot
address all of the contributors. For example, EPA was not
precluded from addressing airborne lead emissions because
there are other sources of lead contamination, some of which
may be beyond EPA's jurisdiction. See Lead Industries Ass'n
v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1136 (DC Cir. 1980).'' We agree that
EPA may address some sources that contribute to a problem
even if it cannot address all of the contributors. However,
there is a fundamental difference between lead pollution and
CO2 ``pollution.''
As the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals observed in the Lead
Industries case, airborne lead is one of three major routes
of exposure, the others being diet and accidental ingestion
of lead objects by small children. Accordingly, setting a
NAAQS for lead cannot provide comprehensive protection
against lead pollution. However, setting a NAAQS for lead can
significantly reduce exposure to airborne lead. Moreover,
reducing airborne lead would also reduce the amount of lead
in the nation's food supply--another major route of exposure.
Therefore, it is possible to set a NAAQS for lead that is
``requisite'' to protect public health. In contrast, setting
a NAAQS for CO2 outside the context of a global
treaty cannot significantly reduce (or even measurably slow
the growth of) atmospheric concentrations of CO2,
particularly since China alone will soon overtake the U.S. as
a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it is hard to
imagine that a NAAQS for only one gas--CO2--that
applies only to the U.S. could satisfy the section 109(b)
requirement that it be ``requisite'' to protect public health
and welfare.
In Q12, we asked which provisions of the CAA apply to
``major stationary sources'' and ``major emitting
facilities,'' and whether such provisions are among those EPA
considers ``potentially applicable'' to CO2. You
explained that the regulatory requirements of Parts C and D
of Title I and Title V of the CAA apply to major stationary
sources and major emitting facilities. You also noted that,
to be a major stationary source or major emitting facility,
an entity must emit an air pollutant that EPA regulates
``pursuant to other provisions of the CAA (e.g., if it were a
criteria pollutant under section 108).'' As you know, section
302(j) defines ``major stationary source'' and ``major
emitting facility'' as any stationary facility or source that
emits, or has the potential to emit, ``one hundred tons per
year or more of any air pollutant.'' it is our understanding
that several hundred thousand small and mid-sized businesses
and farms individually emit 100 tons or more of
CO2 per year. Regulating CO2,
therefore, would dramatically expand EPA's control over the
U.S. economy generally and the small business sector in
particular. We are concerned that EPA has an enormous
organizational interest in laying the legal predicate for
future regulation of CO2.
In Q13, we challenged EPA's reading of the Knollenberg
funding limitation. We noted that there is no clear practical
difference between issuing regulations for the purpose of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which EPA claims is legal,
and issuing regulations ``for the purpose of implementing . .
. the Kyoto Protocol,'' which EPA acknowledges is illegal.
Rather than speak to the substance of our concern, you refer
to previous letters which, in our judgment, also sidestep
that concern. We believe that EPA has once again failed to
elucidate any criteria that would enable Congress, or other
outside observers, to distinguish between legal and illegal
greenhouse gas-reducing regulations under the Knollenberg
limitation.
In your response to Q13, you also took issue with our
understanding of the conditions on which the Senate agreed to
ratify the Rio Treaty. We asked: ``[Would it not have been
pointless for the Senate to have insisted, in ratifying the
Rio Treaty, that the Administration not commit the U.S. to
binding emission reductions without the further advice and
consent of the Senate, if it were already in EPA's power to
impose such reductions under existing authority?'' You
replied: ``[T]he Senate insisted that the Executive Branch
not commit the U.S. to a binding international legal
obligation (i.e., a treaty obligation) without further advice
and consent. The Senate's statement on this point has no
bearing on the scope of existing domestic legal authority to
address pollution problems as a matter of domestic policy,
independent of any international legal obligations.'' We
agree in part, and disagree in part. We agree that the
Senate's statement referred to international obligations.
Nonetheless, that statement does have a bearing on the. scope
of EPA's authority.
A major reason for the Senate's instruction was the concern
that the Administration might commit to an international
agreement that imposes costly burdens on the U.S. and a few
other countries while exempting most nations, including major
U.S. trade competitors like China, Mexico, and Brazil, from
binding emission limitations. Acting on this same concern,
the Senate in July 1997 passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S.
Res. 98) by a vote of 95-0. Byrd-Hagel stated, among other
things, that the U.S. should not be a signatory to any
climate change agreement or protocol that would exempt
developing nations from binding emissions limits.
Now, if the Senate is overwhelmingly opposed to a climate
change treaty that would
[[Page 11732]]
exempt three-quarters of the globe from binding obligations
(even though they emit significant greenhouse gases), it is
unthinkable that Congress would support a unilateral
emissions reduction regime binding upon the U.S. alone.
Simply put, when the Senate ratified the Rio Treaty, it did
so with the understanding that the Executive Branch would not
attempt via administrative action, executive agreement, or
rulemaking to go beyond the Treaty's voluntary goals.
In Q14, we asked you to account for the fact that, although
the Administration claims to regard the science supporting
the Kyoto Protocol as ``clear and compelling,'' EPA
apparently does not believe the science is strong enough to
commence a ``formal scientific review process'' to determine
the appropriateness of domestic regulatory action. Rather
than explain how such seemingly inconsistent positions
cohere, EPA simply asserts without explanation that there is
no incongruity or contradiction.
In summary, with EPA's answers in hand, we are more
convinced than ever that the CAA does not authorize EPA to
regulate CO2. As we have stated in previous
letters, it is' inconceivable that Congress would delegate to
EPA the power to launch a CO2 emissions control
program--arguably the most expansive and expensive regulatory
program in history--without ever once saying so in the text
of the statute. We also think it is obvious that the basic
structure of the NAAQS program, with its designation of local
attainment and nonattainment areas and its call for State
implementation plans, has no application to a global
phenomenon like the greenhouse effect. Furthermore, in view
of the well-known fact that CO2 is a benign
substance and the foundation of the planetary food chain, we
are appalled by the Administration's insistence that EPA
might be able to regulate CO2 as a ``toxic'' or
``hazardous'' air pollutant.
The CAA is not a regulatory blank check. The
Administration's claim that the CAA authorizes regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions can only serve to undermine
Congressional and public support for legitimate EPA
endeavors.
Sincerely,
David M. McIntosh.
Ken Calvert.
____
CO2: A POLLUTANT?
The Legal Affairs Committee Report to the National Mining
Association Board of Directors on The Authority of EPA to
Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean Air Act.
(Fredrick D. Palmer, Chairman, Legal Affairs Committee)
(Peter Glaser, Barbara Van Zomeren, Doherty, Rumble & Butler, PA)
(Harold P. Quinn, Jr., Sr. Vice President & General Counsel, Bradford
V. Frisby Assistant General Counsel, National Mining Association)
preface
Fear of apocalyptic global warming centers on an increasing
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)
due to human activity. The United Nations' voluntary
Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) seeks
to prevent ``dangerous human interference'' with climate. A
successor treaty negotiated at the meeting in Kyoto, Japan in
December 1997 (the Kyoto Protocol) would place the
responsibility on developed nations to substantially cut
their greenhouse gas emissions. What is really at issue in
this debate is human reliance on carbon fuels as our primary
source of energy.
Of course, the economic consequences are enormous for those
countries who truly pursue the commitments established in
Kyoto. The reduction of greenhouse gases means substantial
constraints on economic prosperity--including, perhaps,
reducing income, employment and output. These dire economic
realities no doubt explain the administration's reluctance to
inform the American people of the sacrifices they would be
called upon to make in order to fulfill the commitments made
by U.S. negotiators in Kyoto. No less daunting is the task of
explaining to Americans why they must accept such wrenching
changes to their well-being when the evidence does not show
that the increase in CO2 levels attributed to
human activity is responsible for a measured rise in global
temperature, or, for that matter, that a warmer climate, if
it did occur, poses the threat of an environmental
catastrophe.
These realities pose substantial obstacles to both public
and political acceptance of the Kyoto commitments. Notably,
the administration has not submitted the Protocol to the
Senate for ratification and, apparently, it has no plans to
do so any time soon. Yet, the absence of this constitutional
prerequisite to implementation has not deterred others in the
administration from suggesting the (ab)use of administrative
powers in order to secure the greenhouse gas emission cuts
they agreed to in Kyoto.
Perhaps the most stunning suggestion in this regard is the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) claim that it
currently possesses authority to sregulate CO2 as
a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The characterization of
CO2 as a pollutant is, in a word, remarkable.
After all, this benign gas is a limiting nutrient required
for life on earth. To be sure, EPA's characterization of
CO2 as a pollutant and claim of regulatory powers
over it are not the mere musings of a few wishful bureaucrats
at the agency. The Administrator of EPA herself endorsed this
view in congressional testimony on March 11, 1998. When
pressed by members of Congress on the legal basis for this
claim, the Administrator agreed to provide a legal opinion. A
month later, EPA's general counsel supplied one that attempts
to support the Administrator's claim.
The sweeping claim of regulatory powers over such a
pervasive, yet benign, substance as CO2 presents
the prospect of unparalleled bureaucratic, legal and economic
burdens imposed on the entire heart of the American economy--
more than one million businesses of all sizes in most
sectors. In view of the grave consequences posed by EPA's
expansive claim of administrative powers, the National Mining
Association's Board of Directors requested its Legal Affairs
Committee to evaluate EPA's authority to regulate in this
area. What follows is the Committee's report and analysis
which concludes that, contrary to EPA's claim, the agency
lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon
dioxide emissions.
One need not be an expert on the Clean Air Act or, for that
matter, a lawyer to comprehend the reasoning for this
conclusion. Simply recall the bedrock principle upon which
our system of government rests: the legislative branch makes
the laws and the executive branch executes them. The
corollary principle is, of course, that an agency's
administrative powers are limited to the authority delegated
by Congress. The analysis that follows probes this
fundamental question.
The natural tendency of administrative agencies to swell
their mission beyond the will of Congress as expressed in the
law is, unfortunately, a product of our modern regulatory
state. On occasion, this tendency is also accompanied by a
callous disregard for the most basic of principles that
undergird our system of government, as was the case not long
ago when the White House challenged ``Congress [to] amend the
Clean Water Act to make it consistent with the agencies'
rulemaking.'' See National Mining Association v. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 145 F. 3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998). If
nothing else, this viewpoint should inform us that if we are
to assure fidelity to the basic principles of our system of
government, we must embrace the wisdom offered in Thomas
Jefferson's suggestion that the price of liberty is eternal
vigilance, and always follow Abraham Lincoln's recognition
that the U.S. Executive Branch, under the Constitution, lacks
the authority to ``make permanent rules of property by
proclamation.''
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Soon after the negotiators returned from Kyoto last
December with a protocol that mandates sharp reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and other
developed nations, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) informed Congress that the agency
already possessed authority to begin meeting the targets for
emission cuts. Specifically, the Administrator claimed that
carbon dioxide (CO2) could be characterized as a
pollutant and regulated by EPA pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). At the request of the National Mining Association's
Board of Directors, its Legal Affairs Committee evaluated
this claim. After a comprehensive review of the language and
structure of the CAA, its legislative history and other
related laws, the analysis concludes that, contrary to EPA's
claim, Congress did not provide EPA with such authority.
Instead, Congress deliberately limited EPA's endeavors in
this area to non-regulatory activities.
NMA's legal analysis probes the fundamental question of
whether Congress intended to delegate to EPA the power to
regulate CO2 emissions. The analysis first
demonstrates that the plain text of the statute fails to
delegate such authority to EPA. Second, it examines each of
the sections of the CAA cited by EPA in its legal opinion,
and shows that EPA's attempt to regulate CO2 is
inconsistent with those very sections of the CAA. Third, the
legislative history of the CAA is examined and shown to
contradict EPA's position. Fourth, the analysis explains that
other statutes and treaties support the inevitable conclusion
that Congress did not want EPA to regulate CO2
without additional legislation. Finally, the analysis
cautions that even if Congress decided to authorize EPA to
regulate CO2 under the CAA, the agency would have
great difficulty sustaining its burden of showing that
CO2 emissions endanger the public health and
welfare.
There is no disputing the fact that the CAA does not
explicitly state that EPA may regulate CO2.
Despite the longstanding debate about global warming, not one
of the sections cited by EPA (or any other section) provides
that the agency may regulate CO2. In fact, the
only sections of the CAA that even mention global warming or
CO2 emphasize that such emissions should be the
subject of study, but not regulation.
The agency's legal opinion cites several provisions of the
CAA (Sec. Sec. 108-112, 115, 202(a) and 211(c)) that it
contends are ``potentially applicable'' to confer EPA
jurisdiction over CO2. Even though the most direct
evidence shows that Congress did not intend that EPA
[[Page 11733]]
regulate CO2, the agency hangs its tenuous claim
on general language contained in the CAA. Such language, of
course, cannot defeat the specific intent of Congress on the
question of whether Congress intended for EPA to regulate
CO2 emissions. But, even if the statute were not
clear that EPA cannot regulate CO2, the regulatory
structure of the sections cited by EPA are completely
inconsistent with the regulation of a substance like
CO2 and therefore also compel a conclusion that
EPA may not regulate CO2.
One example of the general language in the CAA cited by EPA
are the sections on criteria pollutants (Sec. Sec. 108-109).
Under these sections, EPA is authorized to establish National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'') to control
national, statewide, and local pollution. However, these
provisions, which are aimed at pollution that affects air
quality locally or regionally, cannot even theoretically
address the CO2 concentrations that purportedly
implicate an atmospheric phenomena of climate change on a
global scale. Since Congress does not delegate regulatory
authority to an agency to impose restrictions that are
somehow calculated to serve an unattainable goal, Congress
did not intend for EPA to regulate CO2 using these
sections of the law. Other examples abound, and the analysis
discusses why the regulation of CO2 does not fit
within the regulatory scheme established by Congress. The
extreme difficulty that EPA has in trying to force
CO2 into a regulatory scheme that does not fit
provides further evidence that Congress never intended
CO2 to be regulated under what EPA says are
``potentially applicable'' sections of the CAA.
The legislative history of the CAA confirms NMA's
conclusions. The CAA did not refer to CO2 until
the 1990 amendments were passed. in those amendments,
Congress specifically debated and ultimately rejected
proposals to allow EPA to regulate CO2 emissions.
Instead, Congress authorized EPA only to study certain
greenhouse gases, not regulate them. By specifically
considering this issue and resolving it against regulation,
Congress clearly withheld from EPA any powers to regulate
CO2.
In determining the meaning of a statute, one may also
consider related statutes on the same subject. Such related
legislation can provide corroborating evidence of
congressional intent. Such is the case here, since several
laws and treaties support the conclusion that Congress did
not delegate authority to regulate CO2 to EPA.
These include the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Rio Treaty,
the National Climate Program Act, the Global Change Research
Act, and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1990. These laws
have consistently rejected proposed measures to mandate
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and instead
directed the executive branch agencies to study the matter
and report back to Congress. Likewise, treaties have been
consistently negotiated with the understanding that any
binding emissions reduction targets would require
Congressional approval.
EPA's claim has one further flaw. Even if Congress left to
EPA's discretion the decision of whether to regulate
CO2 under the CAA, EPA would still be required to
prove that CO2 emissions cause harmful effects to
the public health, welfare or the environment. Given the
complexities and uncertainties over global warming, and the
serious flaws in some of the fundamental evidence relied upon
by global warming advocates, it is doubtful that EPA could
support such a finding. A separate technical report that was
prepared in conjunction with this legal analysis demonstrates
that the available evidence does not support EPA's implicit
assumption that increased levels of CO2 would be
detrimental to the public health and welfare.
In sum, the language of the CAA, its structure, its
legislative history, and other related statutes all lead to
the same conclusion: Congress has not delegated authority
under the Clean Air Act for EPA to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions.
INTRODUCTION
Carbon dioxide is a clear, odorless gas that appears
naturally in the earth's atmosphere and is a fundamental
component of life on earth. All animals (including human
beings) inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, and plants
take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a part of
photosynthesis and return oxygen to the atmosphere as a
byproduct of the same process.
Carbon dioxide is also a naturally occurring ``greenhouse
gas.'' The earth has a natural ``greenhouse effect'' in which
heat from the sun is trapped below'the earth''s atmosphere
and is partially prevented from re-radiating back into space.
The greenhouse gases that cause this effect appear in trace
amounts in the atmosphere and include water vapor (by far the
most significant greenhouse gas), carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxides and stratospheric ozone. Without the naturally
occurring greenhouse effect, the earth's climate would be far
too cold to sustain life as we know it.
It is known that since the industrial revolution, carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing as a
result of human activities (principally the combustion of
fossil fuels for transportation, electric generation,
residential and commercial heating and a variety of other
processes, as well as deforestation). Presently, atmospheric
levels of carbon dioxide are estimated to be approximately
25% higher than in pre-industrial times.
Some scientists believe that the increased levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere are enhancing the natural
greenhouse effect to the extent that the world is facing a
climatological Armageddon. These scientists believe that
increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause
unprecedented warming of the Earth resulting in a variety of
climatological disasters running the gamut from more storms
and flooding to more drought and desertification.
The alarm set off by the predictions of these scientists
resulted in the United States entering into the 1992
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the so-called Rio
Treaty. The United States and other developed nations agreed
in the Rio Treaty to take voluntary action in an attempt to
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year
2000.
Despite a variety of efforts by government and industry,
the Clinton Administration's Climate Change Action Plan has
not succeeded in reducing United States carbon dioxide
emissions. There is now virtually no possibility that the Rio
target will be met. Other countries similarly will fail to
meet that target.
The Clinton Administration, nevertheless, wants to commit
the United States and other developed countries to even more
stringent emissions reductions than set forth in the Rio
Treaty. In December of last year, the Administration entered
into the Kyoto Protocol, which would require the country to
meet binding targets and timetables for reducing carbon
dioxide emissions significantly below 1990 levels before the
end of the next decade.
As a treaty of the United States, the Kyoto Protocol cannot
become legally binding on this country until ratified by a
two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate Prior to Kyoto, the
Senate, by a 95-0 margin, adopted the Byrd-Hagel resolution
in which the Senate expressed that it would not ratify any
protocol that did not require substantive Third World
participation and which would damage the U.S. economy. By the
Administration's own admission, the Kyoto Protocol fails to
achieve the first condition (and by any reasonable analysis
fails to achieve the second condition as well). The
Administration has not yet submitted the treaty to the Senate
for its consent and states that it will not do so until there
are meaningful commitments by Third World countries to reduce
their carbon dioxide emissions.
The Administration has pledged that it will not implement
the Kyoto Protocol unless it is ratified by the Senate.
Nevertheless, in testimony before Congress, the Administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took the
position that, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified,
the agency currently possesses authority under the Clean Air
Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Several weeks
later, EPA produced a legal opinion by its then General
Counsel, Jonathan Z. Cannon, to support EPA's claim of
expansive authority in this regard.
The National Mining Association (NMA) Board of Directors
asked its Legal Affairs Committee to evaluate whether EPA has
the authority it now asserts. This legal analysis presents
our report. We conclude that EPA does not have authority
under the CAA to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide.
Our analysis begins with the fundamental inquiry of whether
Congress intended to delegate to EPA the power to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions. It is, of course, axiomatic that an
agency's administrative powers are limited to the authority
delegated by Congress. In order to ascertain congressional
intent we employ the traditional tools of statutory
construction including the language and structure of the
statute as a whole, its legislative history, the history
associated with congressional activities in this area, and,
to some extent, other relevant statutes. This approach to
discerning congressional intent is not only well-accepted, it
is particularly appropriate where, as here, an agency takes
an expansive view of the scope of its delegated authority.
The EPA general counsel claims that the scope of the
agency's CAA regulatory powers extends to any substance that
is an ``air pollutant'' which the Administrator determines
endangers public health, welfare or the environment.
According to the general counsel, carbon dioxide emissions
fall within the general statutory definition of ``air
pollutant.'' We need not debate this conclusion now since, as
even the general counsel acknowledges, the inquiry does not
end with the definition of ``air pollutant.'' A substance
that may literally fall within the definition of ``air
pollutant'' may not be regulated unless it also meets the
standards for regulation under specific statutory criteria.
Satisfaction of this threshold requirement includes not only
a determination that a substance, here carbon dioxide, may
cause adverse public health, welfare or environmental
effects, but also that the statutory provision, or scheme,
provides an appropriate and effective means for its
regulation. The general counsel merely assumes that the
former determination can be made, and wholly avoids
[[Page 11734]]
evaluation of the latter consideration. Moreover, the general
counsel's analysis is devoid of any consideration of
congressional activity on this subject in the context of both
the CAA and other relevant statutes that evince Congress'
intent to withhold authority from EPA to regulate carbon
dioxide emissions. In short, the general counsel's analysis
is less than complete and, as a consequence, his conclusion
that carbon dioxide emissions are within the scope of EPA's
authority to regulate lacks substantive foundation.
It is our conclusion, grounded on what we believe is a more
comprehensive approach to statutory construction, that the
CAA does not provide EPA with authority to regulate carbon
dioxide emissions. As discussed in more detail below:
1. The language of the CAA demonstrates the absence of
agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide;
2. The regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant does not
fit within the regulatory scheme created by Congress;
3. The legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990
confirms that EPA does not have authority to mandate
restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions; and
4. Other Congressional enactments regarding potential
global climate change demonstrate Congress' intent not to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
In addition, we do not believe that the available evidence
would support a finding that carbon dioxide emissions
endanger the public health or welfare or the environment. The
Greening Earth Society has released an October 12, 1998
report entitled ``In Defense of Carbon Dioxide: A
Comprehensive Review of Carbon Dioxide's Effects on Human
Health, Welfare and the Environment,'' prepared by the firm
of New Hope Environmental Services, to accompany this legal
analysis. The Greening Earth Society report rebuts the claim
that increased levels of carbon dioxide are leading to a
climatological disaster. Our legal analysis herein does not
depend on the results of this technical report. Whether or
not carbon dioxide emissions present a danger to the public
health, welfare or the environment, EPA does not have
authority to regulate that substance. Nevertheless, as shown
in the Greening Earth Society report, there is no basis to
conclude that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging the
environment and every basis to conclude that such emissions
are benefiting the environment.
ANALYSIS
I. THE LANGUAGE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT DEMONSTRATES THE ABSENCE
OF AGENCY AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE
We begin our analysis with an examination of the statutory
language. A proper examination of the statutory text includes
not only the language itself but the context of the language
as it appears in the overall regulatory scheme created by
Congress. Toward this end, a review of the detailed
regulatory provisions of the CAA reveals that none of them
mention carbon dioxide emissions or global warming. When
Congress did speak directly to the issue, it did so solely in
the context of non-regulatory activities such as research and
technology programs. Accordingly, the text and structure of
the CAA reveals Congress' deliberate choice to confine EPA's
CAA endeavors on carbon dioxide to non-regulatory activities.
As part of our examination of the language and structure of
the CAA, it is useful to refer to the historic context of
both the debate surrounding global warming and congressional
activities in this area. The theory that emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases could possibly lead to a
dangerous global warming has been under consideration in
Congress since the late 1970's. During that period,
proponents of greenhouse gas regulation have informed
Congress on numerous occasions of the environmental
catastrophe which, in their view, could result if no such
regulation is undertaken. Indeed, EPA has taken the view that
global climate change as a result of greenhouse gas emissions
is the number one environmental issue facing the world today.
Of course, significant restrictions on emissions of carbon
dioxide could have devastating consequences for our society.
Carbon dioxide is the inevitable result of the combustion of
fossil fuels, and the combustion of fossil fuels is far and
away the most important source of energy for modern
civilization. Because there is no even remotely feasible way
of preventing carbon dioxide emissions when fossil fuels are
combusted, carbon dioxide regulation means potentially severe
reductions in the use of fossil fuels and far-reaching
changes in the way society uses energy.
In view of this longstanding debate on the potential for
global warming from greenhouse gas emissions, one would
expect that any congressional authorization to address this
concern through the CAA regulatory scheme would be plainly
expressed in the language of the statute. Congress is not in
the habit of granting far-reaching authority to
administrative agencies sub silentio. Yet nowhere in the CAA
is there an explicit authorization for EPA to regulate carbon
dioxide. Congressional silence on a matter of such
significance is not unlike the ``watchdog [that] did not bark
in the night.''
Our conclusion that the language of the CAA does not
support EPA's claim of authority to regulate carbon dioxide
need not rest upon congressional silence alone. The text of
the statute demonstrates Congress' deliberate choice to limit
EPA's endeavors on carbon dioxide to non-regulatory
activities.
The CAA expressly provides authority to regulate numerous
substances specifically referenced in the statute. For
example, Sections 108 and 109 authorize EPA to regulate so-
called ``criteria pollutants,'' which are explicitly listed
and placed in the context of a specific scheme for their
regulation. Section 112 directs EPA to designate and regulate
hazardous air pollutants (``HAPs''), and lists no less than
190 specific such pollutants Congress determined are the most
important to regulate. Similarly, Title VI of the CAA
authorizes EPA to list and regulate substances which deplete
the stratospheric ozone layer, and designates 53 substances
to be so regulated. But neither global warming generally, nor
carbon dioxide specifically, are mentioned anywhere in this
prolific regulatory scheme developed by Congress.
To be sure, the CAA does contain references to carbon
dioxide and global warming. However, the context in which
these terms appear within the statutory scheme provides
powerful guidance on congressional intent. The statute
mentions carbon dioxide and global warming solely in the
context of provisions that authorize their study, monitoring
and evaluation of non-regulatory strategies. For example, CAA
Section 103(g) lists carbon dioxide as one of several items
to be considered in EPA's conduct of a ``basic engineering
research and technology program to develop, evaluate and
demonstrate nonregulatory strategies and technologies.''
Global warming is mentioned in CAA Section 602(e) which
directs EPA to examine the global warming potential of
certain listed substances that contribute to stratospheric
ozone depletion. However, this provision--the only one in the
statute that mentions global warming--is accompanied by an
express admonishment that it ``shall not be construed to be
the basis of any additional regulation under [the CAA].''
This examination of the statutory language in its context
within the overall scheme of the CAA provides a more complete
analysis than the EPA's general counsel's mechanistic
approach whereby the agency simply bootstraps itself into
carbon dioxide regulation through a broadly worded definition
of ``air pollutant.'' To accept the analysis, proffered by
EPA's general counsel is to presume a delegation of power
merely by the absence of an express withholding of such
power--a view plainly out of step with the principles of
administrative law. The fundamental principles of statutory
construction do not permit one to read into the CAA's
detailed regulatory provisions greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide that Congress deliberately left out.
Congressional silence on carbon dioxide in this part of the
CAA is audible. The intentions of Congress by such silence in
the CAA's regulatory scheme become unmistakable with its
deliberate choice to address global warming and carbon
dioxide solely in the non-regulatory provisions of the
statute.
This approach to evaluating the language within the overall
statutory scheme leads us to conclude that, with respect to
carbon dioxide, Congress has indicated that EPA's authority
stops at the point of non-regulatory activities. Any claim
that EPA currently possesses authority to regulate carbon
dioxide emissions would extend the CAA beyond the scope
intended by Congress.
II. THE REGULATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AS A POLLUTANT DOES NOT
FIT WITHIN THE REGULATORY SCHEME CREATED BY CONGRESS.
A. Introduction
The EPA general counsel identifies several CAA regulatory
provisions that are, in his words, ``potentially applicable''
to carbon dioxide emissions. Without any meaningful analysis,
the opinion simply concludes that the specific criteria for
regulation under these provisions could be met if the
Administrator determines that carbon dioxide can be
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse
effects on public health, welfare or the environment.
For the moment, we leave aside the question of whether the
Administrator would be able to make the health, welfare or
environmental effects determination the general counsel poses
as singularly important, because his analysis is incomplete.
For the purposes of this step of our analysis, our
examination of those ``potentially applicable'' provisions
discloses that they do not provide appropriate tools for the
regulation of carbon dioxide emissions' purported effects on
global warming. The fact that the regulation of carbon
dioxide as a pollutant does not fit into the regulatory
scheme established in the statute confirms the conclusion
that its regulation by EPA under the CAA is not intended by
Congress.
B. There is No Authority in the CAA to Regulate Carbon
Dioxide as a Criteria Pollutant.
1. EPA's Authority to Designate Substances as Criteria
Pollutants.--The EPA general counsel states that one
potential source of EPA authority to regulate carbon
[[Page 11735]]
dioxide emissions is CAA Sections 108, 109 and 110. These
sections provide authority to EPA to establish, implement and
enforce National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
what are known as ``criteria pollutants.'' Under CAA Section
108(a)(1), criteria pollutants are those substances which, in
the judgment of the EPA Administrator, ``cause or contribute
to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare'' and which are produced by
``numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.''
Once a substance is identified as a criteria pollutant, the
Administrator is required under CAA Section 109 to publish
primary and secondary NAAQS for each such substance. Primary
NAAQS are ``ambient air quality standards the attainment and
maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator,
based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of
safety, are requisite to protect the public health.''
Secondary NAAQS are standards ``requisite to protect the
public welfare.''
Once NAAQS are established, a complex regulatory structure
is triggered that mandates reductions of criteria pollutants
in the ambient air to levels which protect the public health
and welfare as set forth in the applicable NAAQS. Under CAA
Section 107(d)(1)(B), within a defined period EPA is required
to designate nonattainment, attainment and unclassifiable
areas. Under CAA Section 110(a)(1), within three years after
promulgation of a NAAQS, every state must ``adopt and submit
to the Administrator'' a state implementation plan, or
``SIP,'' ``which provides for implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of the primary and secondary NAAQS. CAA
Section 110(a)(2) provides a long list of SIP requirements
designed to ensure that states will achieve the air quality
required by the NAAQS. Similarly, CAA Section 172 provides
EPA with extensive authority to ensure that nonattainment
areas are brought into attainment ``as expeditiously as
practicable.''
2. Congress Could Not Have Intended to Regulate Carbon
Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases as Criteria Pollutants
Because the Statutory Regime for Regulating Criteria
Pollutants is Wholly Unsuited to Preventing or Mitigating
Potential Global Climate Change.--The criteria pollutant
regulatory structure described in the foregoing section is
designed to apply to local air pollution in the sense that
ambient concentrations of the pollution will differ from
locality to locality, causing some localities to be
designated as attainment areas and others as nonattainment
areas. All of the substances which EPA has designated as
criteria pollutants meet this framework. Lead, sulfur oxides,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and
ozone concentrations in the air all present local air
pollution problems that have resulted in discrete portions of
the country being designated as nonattainment for each. Some
of the pollutants (principally ozone) are blown downwind,
causing EPA to seek to exercise authority in the CAA to
require modifications in SIPs to prevent ozone formation in
downwind states. But even ozone presents a local air
pollution problem in that ambient ozone concentrations differ
from locality to locality, resulting in the designation of
discrete ozone nonattainment areas.
Emission controls implemented under the CAA criteria
pollutant regulatory structure described above are designed
to cure the specific cause of the local nonattainment
problem. States in their SIPs select those types of controls
``as may be necessary'' to achieve attainment in designated
nonattainment areas, and these types of controls may differ
from state to state and from nonattainment area to
nonattainment area depending on the particular problem being
addressed.
As a result of the criteria pollutant statutory structure,
ambient concentrations of each of the criteria pollutants
have been steadily reduced through the application primarily
of local controls but with upwind controls as well. Although
not all localities designated as nonattainment have been
brought into attainment, the criteria pollutant regulatory
structure has achieved significant progress in reducing
atmospheric concentrations of criteria pollutants and
nonattainment. More importantly, while industry and
environmental groups frequently have their disputes as to the
exact requirements of the criteria pollutant regulatory
structure, and the speed with which nonattainment can be
cured, the fact remains that such regulatory structure is
plainly designed to require local nonattainment areas to
achieve attainment.
This statutory structure has no rational application
whatsoever to a substance such as carbon dioxide, which is
fundamentally different than any of the substances that EPA
regulates as a criteria pollutant. Although groundlevel and
lower atmospheric ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide
may differ slightly from locality to locality owing to
differing sources and sinks, the greenhouse effect results
from overall greenhouse gas concentrations in the troposphere
rather than at groundlevel. Tropospheric levels of carbon
dioxide over any particular locality are not influenced by
emissions of carbon dioxide locally or upwind. Carbon dioxide
mixes in the troposphere globally through the natural
processes of atmospheric circulation and air movement. Thus,
ambient tropospheric carbon dioxide levels in any one part of
the world are roughly the same as in any other part of the
world. As a result, one ton of carbon dioxide emitted in
Washington, D.C., has the same effect on ambient tropospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide over Washington as a ton of
carbon dioxide emitted in Bangladesh.
Moreover, carbon dioxide with anthropogenic (human) origins
compromise only a small part of the greenhouse gases
appearing in the atmosphere. In the first place, as stated,
carbon dioxide is by no means the only anthropogenically
emitted greenhouse gas. Other greenhouse gases emitted by man
include methane, nitrogen oxides and chlorofluorocarbons,
each of which has far greater heat trapping capacity per
molecule than carbon dioxide.
Similarly, anthropogenically emitted greenhouse gases
contribute only a minuscule amount of the greenhouse gases
occurring in the troposphere. Water vapor occurring naturally
in the atmosphere is the main greenhouse gas, contributing
about 98% of the greenhouse effect. Similarly, naturally
occurring sources of carbon dioxide far outweigh
anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide.
The United States itself is a leading source worldwide of
anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, the United
States contributes only about 22% of all anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gases, and that number is projected
to decline dramatically as the Third World industrializes.
U.S. anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide thus are, and
will continue to be, only a tiny fraction of the total
sources--both anthropogenic and natural--of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere.
For these reasons, it is not even theoretically possible to
affect ambient concentrations of carbon dioxide in the
troposphere through a program of designating nonattainment
areas and requiring the submission of state-by-state SIPs. It
is not known what level of ambient concentration of carbon
dioxide that EPA might deem necessary to protect the public
health and welfare. If EPA were to set the level below
current concentrations (for instance, at preindustrial
levels), every square inch of the United States would
immediately become a non-attainment area, a result that would
be unprecedented in nearly three decades of CAA
administration. Every state would become responsible to
submit SIPs within three years containing emissions
restrictions ``as necessary to assure that'' the NAAQS for
carbon dioxide is Met. Yet there would be nothing a state
could do, individually or in concert with every other state,
that would be effective in reducing tropospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations.
In sum, it is obvious that the statutory scheme established
by Congress for the regulation of criteria pollutants was
never intended, and cannot rationally be applied, to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions. Under elementary principles of
statutory construction, therefore, that statutory structure
cannot be interpreted as providing the regulatory authority
EPA claims. It is axiomatic, for instance, that Congress
should not be presumed to provide regulatory authority to an
agency ``to impose restrictions that [are] should one make a
``fortress of the dictionary'' by accepting the literal
meaning of statutory language where such meaning is
contradicted by a statute's purposes and structure. Statutory
construction is a ``holistic endeavor'' that ``must include,
at a minimum, an examination of the statute's full text, its
structure, and the subject matter.''
Based on these principles, it has been held that Congress
cannot have intended to create regulatory jurisdiction where
``the operative provisions of the Act simply cannot
accommodate'' the object of the asserted regulatory
authority. And this principle applies even where an agency is
given a broad mandate to protect the public health and
welfare. As stated by the Supreme Court, ``[i]n our anxiety
to effectuate the congressional purpose of protecting the
public, we must take care not to extend the scope of the
statute beyond the point where Congress indicated it would
stop.''
In the present case, the phrase ``endanger the public
health or welfare'' in CAA Section 108 must be read in
context of a criteria pollutant regulatory structure which,
as described, is intended to eliminate such endangerment
through a system of individual state implementation plans
aimed at eliminating local pockets of pollution. That
structure is wholly unsuited to the global warming issue and
cannot possibly eliminate the asserted danger of carbon
dioxide emissions. No conclusion is possible other than that
Congress does not intend to regulate carbon dioxide as a
criteria pollutant.
C. EPA Does Not Have Authority to Regulate Emissions of
Carbon, Dioxide through the Imposition of Technology-
Based Controls under CAA Section 111.
1. EPA authority under Section 111.--The EPA General
Counsel opines that another potential source of authority to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions would be CAA Section 111.
CAA Section 111 provides EPA with authority to establish
``new source performance standards,'' or ``NSPS,'' for
categories
[[Page 11736]]
of sources which emit air pollutants. Unlike the NAAQS, NSPS
requirements are direct emissions limitations that any plant
to which such controls apply must meet as a condition of
operation. NSPS are sometimes referred to as technology-based
standards because they require installation of equipment that
limits emissions from emitting sources and are not directly
tied to the level of pollutants in the ambient air.
Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(A), the Administrator shall
designate a category of sources as subject to NSPS
requirements if she finds that sources within such category
``cause . . . or contribute . . . significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.'' CAA Section 111(a)(1) defines
``standard of performance'' as: ``a standard for emissions of
air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission
limitation achievable through the application of the best
system of emission reduction which (taking into account the
cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality
health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.''
2. EPA Is Without Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
Emissions under CM Section 111 Because There Are No
Adequately Demonstrated Systems of Emissions Reduction that
Would Limit Such Emissions from Stationary Sources.--Unlike
the NAAQS, NSPS standards cannot be set at whatever level the
Administrator determines is reasonably necessary to protect
human health and welfare. The NSPS limitation must be set at
a level that is ``achievable'' through ``the best system of
emission reduction which . . . has been adequately
demonstrated.''
The case law related to EPA determinations under CAA
Section 111 has ``established a rigorous standard of review.
. . .'' While an achievable standard need not be one already
routinely achieved in the industry, any such standard ``must
be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which
can reasonably be expected to recur. . . .'' There must be
``some assurance of the achievability of the standard for the
industry as a whole.'' ``An adequately demonstrated system is
one which has been shown to be reasonably reliable,
reasonably efficient, and which can reasonably be expected to
serve the interests of pollution control without being
exorbitantly costly in an economic or environmental way.''
As explained by the courts, the degree to which an
adequately demonstrated system must be based on commercially
available technology depends on how soon the standards will
become effective. Because NSPS standards are generally
applied to new, as yet unconstructed sources, the NSPS
provision ``looks towards what may fairly be projected for
the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at
present, since it is addressed to standards for new plants--
old stationary source pollution being controlled through
other regulatory authority'' (i.e., CAA Sections 108 and
109). Where standards are put into effect to ``control new
plants immediately, as opposed to one or two years in the
future, the latitude of projection is correspondingly
narrowed.'' Under this rationale, ``the latitude of
projection'' would be narrowed even more were EPA to attempt
to apply standards of performance to carbon dioxide emissions
from existing stationary sources under CAA Section 111(d).
There are, however, no cost-effective systems of emissions
control, either commercially available at the present time or
even projected to be commercially available in the
foreseeable future, for controlling carbon dioxide emissions
from stationary sources that could conceivably meet the
standards of CAA Section 111. As a result, CAA Section 111
cannot be applied to control stationary sources of carbon
dioxide.
D. EPA Does Not Have Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
Emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutant.
1. EPA Authority under CAA Section 112.--The EPA General
Counsel's opinion claims that EPA may have authority to
regulate carbon dioxide as a hazardous air pollutant, or
``HAP,'' pursuant to CAA Section 112.\72\ Under CAA Section
112(b), the Administrator is required to compile a list of
HAPs, defined to include the 190 substances specifically
listed in such subsection as well as:
``. . . pollutants which present, or may present, through
inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse
human health effects (including but not limited to,
substances which are known to be, or may reasonably be
anticipated to be, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic,
neurotoxic, which cause reproductive dysfunction, or which
are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse environmental
effects, whether through ambient concentrations,
bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise . . .''
Under CAA Section 112(c), the Administrator is further
required to compile a list of categories of major sources and
area sources of HAPs. Under CAA Section 112(d), the
Administrator is required to promulgate regulations
establishing national emissions standards for HAPs (NESHAPs)
applicable to both new and existing sources. Such NESHAPs
must require the use of maximum available control technology
(MACT) in controlling sources of HAPs.
2. Carbon Dioxide is not a HAP Subject to EPA Authority
under CAA Section 112.--The argument that carbon dioxide may
be regulated as a HAP borders on the frivolous. Each of the
190 substances listed as HAPs under CAA Section 112 is a
poison, producing toxic effects in small dosages. Carbon
dioxide, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a poison.
Moreover, if Congress had really intended that carbon dioxide
be regulated as a HAP, it would have been exceedingly strange
for it to have specifically named 190 of the presumably most
obvious and important HAPs in CAA Section 112 while omitting
carbon dioxide, which is by many orders of magnitude more
ubiquitous in the environment than any of the substances
expressly listed.
In addition, the language of CAA Section 112 excludes
regulation of carbon dioxide because that substance does not
present either ``a threat of adverse human health effects''
or adverse environmental effects'' within the meaning of the
section. With respect to health effects, the use of the
phrase ``through inhalation or other routes of exposure'' in
CAA Section 112(b) demonstrates that a substance may be a HAP
only if it causes health impacts through direct exposure. It
is the direct inhalation of the substance or other direct
exposure to it that must cause the health effect.
The fact that health effects must be experienced from
direct exposure is shown by the examples of such effects
given in CAA Section 112(b): ``carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive
dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic.''
Each of these is a health effect caused by direct exposure to
a hazardous substance, whether that exposure is inhalation,
ingestion or contact with the skin or sensory organs. It is
also borne out by the list of substances which Congress
predesignated as HAPs in CAA Section 112(b) each of which
causes a health effect through a direct exposure.
Carbon dioxide in the amounts present and likely to be
present in the atmosphere in the future do not cause health
effects through inhalation or other direct exposure. The
health effect typically postulated to occur as a result of
global warming is the potential for an increase in tropical
diseases. Such effect (even if true) would be, at best,
highly indirect, caused by the reaction carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases have in the atmosphere, which might
warm the climate, which might make areas of the United States
conducive to insects carrying tropical diseases, which might
lead to an increase in such diseases. Such effect is
completely unlike the health effects referred to in CAA
Section 112.
Similarly, the effect carbon dioxide is argued to have on
the environment is not caused by the direct interaction of
carbon dioxide and animal or plant life but the indirect
effect of carbon dioxide on the climate. The use of the terms
``bioaccumulation'' and ``deposition'' to describe the causes
of environmental effects contemplated by CAA Section 112(b)
demonstrates that Congress did not intend to regulate through
CAA Section 112 effects not directly caused by the HAP
itself. And, again, the effect greenhouse gases are asserted
to have on the environment is nothing like the effect of the
various chemicals included on Congress' pre-designated list
of HAPs in Section 112(b), each of which causes a harm
through direct exposure.
The legislative history of CAA Section 112 makes it
abundantly clear that carbon dioxide cannot be considered to
be a HAP. In distinguishing between the types of substances
that are HAPs and the types that are criteria pollutants, the
legislative history states that criteria pollutants are
``more pervasive, but less potent, than hazardous air
pollutants.'' ``Hazardous air pollutants are pollutants that
pose serious health risks. . . . They may reasonably be
anticipated to cause cancer, neurological disorders,
reproductive dysfunctions, other chronic health effects, or
adverse acute human health effects.
Similarly, ``adverse environmental effect'' is defined in
the legislative history as follows:
``Adverse environmental effects--The chemical is known to
cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because of:
(i) its toxicity, (ii) its toxicity and persistence in the
environment, or (iii) its toxicity and tendency to
bioaccumulate in the environment,'' a significant adverse
effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the
judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under
this section.
As seen, carbon dioxide does not fit any of these
standards. It is not a HAP that can be regulated under CAA
Section 112.
E. EPA Does Not Have Authority to Regulate Carbon Dioxide
Emissions under CAA Section 115.
The EPA general counsel also suggests that EPA may regulate
carbon dioxide under CAA Section 115 regarding control of
international air pollution. CAA Section 115(a) provides:
``Whenever the Administrator, upon receipt of reports,
surveys, or studies from any duly constituted international
agency has reason to believe that any air pollutant or
pollutants emitted in the United States cause or contribute
to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger
[[Page 11737]]
public health or welfare in a foreign country or whenever the
Secretary of State requests him to do so with respect to such
pollution which the Secretary of State alleges is of such a
nature, the Administrator shall give formal notification
thereof to the Governor of the State in which such emissions
originate.''
Under CAA Section 115(b), the giving of notice to a
governor under CAA Section 115(a) constitutes a ``SIP call.''
The applicable state is thereupon required to amend the
portion of its SIP ``as is inadequate to prevent or eliminate
the endangerment referred to in subsection (a) of this
section.''
CAA Section 115 does not apply to carbon dioxide emissions
because the provision is self-evidently designed to apply
only to situations where wind bome pollution from the United
States is being deposited in a near-by country. It stretches
the provision beyond its intended scope to say that it
applies to a phenomenon such as the greenhouse effect, where
emissions anywhere on the globe contribute equally to
tropospheric levels of carbon dioxide that are roughly the
same anywhere else on the globe.
The limited intent of CAA Section 115 is demonstrated by
its use of the ``SIP call'' mechanism as the means of
enforcing emissions reductions. As discussed above, it would
be entirely unprecedented to use the SIP process to mandate
emissions reductions from the entire country, particularly
where reductions even from the U.S. as a whole cannot solve
presumed global warming.
The limited intent of CAA Section CAA 115 is also
demonstrated in subsection (c), entitled ``reciprocity,''
which states that ``[t]his section shall apply only to a
foreign country which the Administrator determines has given
the U.S. essentially the same rights with respect to the
prevention or control of air pollution occurring in that
country as is given that country by this section.'' As can be
seen, this section provides that the U.S. will not restrict
emissions of pollutants causing injury to another country
unless that country reciprocates. Such section has no logical
application to the global warming phenomenon, where U.S.
emissions are presumably harming every other country in the
world. Such section could presumably be applied as to carbon
dioxide emissions only if every other country reciprocated.
That is a circumstance so unlikely to occur that it is
impossible to believe that Congress intended that CAA Section
115 would be applied to a phenomenon such as global warming.
In any event, unless and until the Senate ratifies the
Kyoto Protocol (and unless and until the Protocol is adopted
by enough countries to enter into force), no country has
given the U.S. any ``rights'' with respect to the control of
carbon dioxide emissions within their borders. Even if the
Kyoto Protocol enters into effect, if the U.S. does not
become a party to it then the U.S. is not entitled to any
``rights'' thereunder respecting foreign countries that have.
In sum, CAA Section 115 cannot provide authority to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
III. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CAA AMENDMENTS OF 1990
CONFIRMS THAT EPA DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO MANDATE
RESTRICTIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS.
A. Introduction.
The only provisions in the CAA that explicitly refer to
carbon dioxide or global climate change were enacted as a
part of the CAA Amendments of 1990. The legislative history
of the 1990 Amendments confirms that Congress never intended
to impose or authorize mandatory restrictions on carbon
dioxide emissions.
During Congressional consideration of the 1990 Amendments
there was a sharp dispute between those who believed that the
time had come for the United States to impose mandatory
reductions on carbon dioxide emissions and those that did
not. The latter group prevailed. Congress specifically
rejected proposals to authorize EPA to regulate emissions of
carbon dioxide. The only carbon dioxide/global warming
provisions adopted were non-regulatory.
As the Supreme Court has emphasized, ``[f]ew principles of
statutory construction are more compelling than the
proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to
* * * * *
with what were argued to be the related issues of
stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change.''
Title VII found that ``stratospheric ozone depletion and
global climate change from continued emissions of
chluroflurocarbons and other halogenated chlorine containing
halocarbons with ozone depleting potential, and emissions of
other gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, imperil
human health and the environment worldwide;'' and that
``emissions of other gases, such as methane and carbon
dioxide, should be controlled.'' The legislation included as
goals not just protection of the ozone layer but prevention
of possible global warming as well:
``The objectives of this title are to restore and maintain
the chemical and physical integrity of the Earth's
atmosphere, to protect human health and the global
environment from all known and potential dangers due to
atmospheric or climatic modification, inciuding stratospheric
ozone depletion, to provide for a smooth transition from the
use of ozone depleting chemicals to the use of safe
chemicals, products, and technologies that do not threaten
the ozone layer, and to reduce the generation of greenhouse
gases in order to protect the Earth's ozone layer and to
limit anthropogenically induced global climate change . . .
``In order to achieve the objectives of this title, it is
the national goal to eliminate atmospheric emissions of
manufactured substances with ozone depleting potential as
well as direct and indirect global warming potential,
including chluroflurocarbons and other halogenated chlorine
or bromine containing halocarbons with ozone depleting and
global warming potential, to reduce to the maximum extent
possible emissions of other gases caused by human activities
that are likely to affect adversely the global climate and to
provide for an orderly shift to alternative, safe chemicals,
products, and technologies. (Emphasis supplied.)''
In order to accomplish these goals, the Administrator would
be required to publish priority and secondary lists of all
manufactured substances ``which are known or may reasonably
be anticipated to cause or contribute significantly to
atmospheric or climatic modification, including stratospheric
ozone depletion.'' The Administrator would also be required
to promulgate regulations providing for the phase-out of
substances on the lists. The legislation as reported also
contained a modified version of the carbon dioxide tailpipe
standards originally contained in S. 1630 as introduced.
Consistent with these legislative requirements, the Senate
Committee Report on S. 1630 contains a great deal of
discussion on the need for the country to deal with the
``[t]wo distinct but closely related global environmental
crises,'' that is, destruction of the ozone layer and
potential global warming.''
The Senate adopted Title VII of S. 1630 as reported from
committee almost without change.
C. House of Representatives Consideration.
The House CAA Amendment bill was H.R. 3030, introduced by
Representative Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee to which the bill was referred. As
introduced and as reported from Committee, the bill contained
no terms dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion or global
warming.
On the floor of the House, a comprehensive stratospheric
ozone title was adopted as an amendment introduced by Rep.
Dingell. The House amendment was closer to the final
legislation regarding stratospheric ozone than the Senate
bill. As in the final legislation, there were no findings or
purposes stated in the House bill regarding the need to deal
with global warming or referring to carbon dioxide or other
greenhouse gases. And, significantly, the definition of the
substances that could be regulated, set forth in Section
151(a) of Rep. Dingell's bill, did not even arguably include
greenhouse gases that were not ozone depleting substances.
D. The Final Legislation.
The final legislation that emerged from the conference
committee and became law contains a stratospheric ozone title
that was a compromise between the House and Senate versions.
However, the House version prevailed completely in
eliminating the language in the Senate bill that would have
authorized regulation of non-ozone depleting greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide. Title VI as enacted did not include
the Senate's language authorizing EPA to regulate
``manufactured substances'' in terms broad enough to cover
both substances that deplete the ozone layer and substances
that do not deplete the ozone layer but which affect global
climate. Instead, CAA Section 602(a) as enacted requires the
Administrator to list ``Class I'' and ``Class II'' substances
that would be phased out pursuant to CAA Sections 605 and 606
These substances are defined as those which could affect the
stratospheric ozone layer; nothing in the definition of such
substances refers to global climate change. And there are no
findings or purposes included anywhere in the CAA
specifically regarding global warming or the need to regulate
greenhouse gases, as there had been in the Senate bill.
In sum, the Senate in 1990 plainly saw the need to adopt
amendments to the CAA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet all of the provisions proposed in the Senate dealing with
global warming--the findings and purposes language and the
``manufactured substances'' language which were in the final
Senate bill, as well as the authority to impose NSPS
requirements for carbon dioxide on mobile, stationary and
residential sources and the authority to impose carbon
dioxide tailpipe standards which had been considered in the
Senate Committee--were not enacted. Instead, only the non-
regulatory provisions on global warming discussed above were
enacted. No conclusion is possible other than that Congress
determined that it did not intend to authorize regulation of
greenhouse gases.
[[Page 11738]]
IV. OTHER CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS REGARDING POTENTIAL GLOBAL
CLIMATE CHANGE DEMONSTRATE CONGRESS' INTENT NOT TO
REGULATE CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS.
A. Introduction.
Courts have consistently ruled that ``[iln determining the
meaning of a statute, the courts look not only at the
specific statute at issue, but at its context of related
statutes. Similarly, ``. . . in a situation in which prior
law may be unclear it is appropriate to examine a later
germane statute for aid in construing the earlier law.
Congress' rejection of greenhouse gas regulation in the
1990 CAA Amendments has a detailed context stretching back to
the late 1970s when the issue first arose. In the two decades
since that time, Congressional committees have held dozens of
hearings on the subject, and Congress has enacted a number of
major items of legislation dealing with potential global
climate change both before and after the 1990 CAA Amendments.
In all of this time, and with all of this intensive
consideration, Congress has consistently rejected measures to
restrict greenhouse gas emissions. As seen, Congress rejected
efforts to amend the CAA to adopt such measures. It also
rejected efforts to adopt such measures in the omnibus Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct), and it rejected such efforts in
other legislative vehicles as well. Instead, Congress has
adopted legislation for various Executive Branch agencies to
study the matter and report back to Congress. It has also
declared it to be U.S. policy to participate in international
negotiations regarding climate change that may eventually
lead, if Congress so determines in the future, to a decision
to authorize restrictions on U.S. emissions of greenhouse
gases. In the meantime, pending further action, Congress has
explicitly determined, through the Senate's ratification of
the Rio Treaty, that the United States will not adopt binding
or mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
It is simply not possible to square this history of
Congressional rejection of greenhouse gas restrictions with
EPA's claim today of discretion to issue far-reaching
regulations.
B. The Energy Policy Act of 1992.
EPAct is omnibus legislation containing 30 titles on the
subject of energy regulation and policy. The global warming
issue was discussed in detail during the legislative history
of the Act. The final legislation contains a specific global
climate change title, Title XVI. The title contains various
provisions for study, planning and funding but no provisions
authorizing mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.
As with the 1990 CAA Amendments, the non-regulatory
provisions of EPAct were adopted in lieu of proposals
specifically to mandate restrictions on greenhouse gas
emissions. For instance, Senator Wirth, in the 100th and
101st Congresses, introduced omnibus national energy
legislation containing detailed findings and purposes
language describing global warming as an imminent threat to
mankind. Both bills would have established a national goal
``that the introduction into the atmosphere of C02 from the
United States of America shall be reduced from 1988 levels by
at least 20 per centurn by the year 2000 through a mix of
Federal and State energy policies that are designed to
mitigate the costs and risks, both economic and
environmental, associated with meeting national energy needs
while reducing the generation of carbon dioxide and trace
gases and sustaining economic growth and development. Both
bills would have required DOE to adopt a national energy plan
designed to meet such goal.''' The plan would be required to
include an action plan which DOE ``shall implement . . . to
the maximum extent possible.'' None of these provisions,
however, were included in EPAct.
Another proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions
rejected by Congress in the debate over EPAct was the so-
called Cooper-Synar bill. Cooper-Synar was originally
introduced as H.R. 5966 in the 101st Congress and again as
H.R. 2663 in the 102d Congress. The bill proposed to amend
the CAA to prohibit operation of new stationary sources that
emit 100,000 tons or more per year of carbon dioxide without
obtaining offsets under a permit program to be established by
EPA. It was opposed by the Bush Administration, which took
the position during the debate on EPAct that the United
States should undertake no actions regarding global warming
other than those which would be economically justified for
other reasons (the so-called ``no regrets'' strategy).
A much watered down version of Cooper-Synar was included as
Section 1605 of EPAct, but only after its sponsors had
assured Congress that any provisions of a binding or
regulatory nature had been removed. As enacted, Section 1605
provides for voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emission
reductions, in contrast to the mandatory restrictions
originally proposed. Section 1605 was offered as an amendment
to H.R. 776, the bill that became EPAct, by Rep.
Cooper'during the mark-up of that legislation in the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Power. It was included in H.R. 776
as passed by the House but was opposed by the Administration
in the Senate. Speaking in favor of Rep. Cooper's amendment
on the floor of the Senate, Senator Lieberman (who co-
sponsored the Cooper language in the Senate) stated:
``As a part of this energy bill, the Senator from Colorado
[Mr. Wirth] who is on the floor now, and I, have prepared a
simple amendment, virtually identical to one offered by
Representative Jim Cooper to H.R. 776, the House energy bill,
which [H.R. 776 without the Cooper amendment] was adopted
unanimously on a bipartisan basis by the House Subcommittee
on Energy and Power.
``That amendment would have provided the Administrator of
EPA with the power to establish a system for rewarding the
good work of industries that voluntarily--and I stress
voluntarily--either reduced their own greenhouse gas
emissions or undertake programs to reduce emissions from
other sources.
``This was a simple amendment. It did not set goals or
mandates. It did not establish timetables. It did not require
reductions. It did not impose a requirement on firms to
obtain credits or reduce emissions. But it did provide that
good corporate citizens who voluntarily contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions will have an opportunity to let the
Government record their efforts at reducing those emissions
in a data bank.''
As can be seen, Congress chose to reject the original
Cooper-Synar proposal which had included all the requirements
that Senator Lieberman informed Congress were not included in
the voluntary reporting proposal that was enacted, that is,
goals and mandates, timetables, required emissions reductions
and required offsets. Instead, Congress adopted non-binding
provisions as to greenhouse gases, consistent with the
description of U.S. policy towards potential global warming
enunciated in the House Report on H.R. 776, the bill that
became law:
``The greenhouse warming title, together with the numerous
provisions in the rest of the comprehensive energy bill,
embodies the following basic approach: We should take cost-
effective actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions
(such as improving energy efficiency, facilitating coalbed
methane recovery, and promoting renewable energy resources);
we should analyze the important technical and policy issues
that will enable us to make wiser decisions on more dramatic
and possibly higher cost actions which should be taken only
in the context of concerted international action.''
As with the 1990 CAA Amendments, the view of the global
climate change issue that prevailed in the debate over EPAct
did not include, and specifically rejected, mandatory
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
C. The Rio Treaty
As reflected in the 1992 Report of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce on the legislation that became EPAct,
Congress has consistently resisted adopting mandatory
restrictions of greenhouse gas emissions in part because
Congress wished to address what was essentially an
international issue in an international forum. Indeed, for
all of the period during which such restrictions were being
proposed in Congress, and particularly during debate of the
CAA Amendments of 1990 and the 1992 EPAct, the issue of
potential greenhouse gas restrictions was the subject of
intense international negotiation. However, as the following
discussion shows, those negotiations have never resulted in
Congress approving, in a treaty or otherwise, binding
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
The U.S. Government has been extensively involved in
international discussions concerning human impacts on the
global climate at least since 1979 when the first conference
of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the International
Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) was held. After a number
of additional international conferences during the 1980s, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created
to address the issue of climate change. The first of a number
of IPCC meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland in November,
1988 and was attended by thirty-five nations, including the
United States. The IPCC produces reports on global warming
science, potential environmental and economic impacts and
potential response strategies. It also advises the
International Negotiating Committee, (INC).
The INC was established by the United Nations General
Assembly on December 21, 1990 to coordinate negotiation of an
international treaty dealing with potential climate change.
These negotiations led to adoption, on May 9, 1992, of the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, or Rio Treaty, by the
resumed fifth session of the INC. The Framework Convention
was signed on behalf of the United States on June 12, 1992.
The U.S. Senate ratified the Framework Convention on October
7, 1992 by the required two-thirds vote.
The Framework Convention calls for the U.S., on a non-
binding basis, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels by the year 2000. It was ratified by the Senate with
the clear understanding that the reductions called for in the
treaty are purely voluntary. As a part of the Hearings of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the Framework
Convention, the Committee submitted
[[Page 11739]]
written questions to the Administration on various aspects of
the Treaty. These questions and the Administration responses
were included as an Appendix to the transcript of the
Hearings of the Committee. In responding to these questions,
the Administration represented that its responses could be
considered to be ``authoritative statements for the Executive
Branch.'' With respect to subparagraphs 2(a) and (b) of
Article 4, which are the provisions containing the operative
U.S. commitments as to targets and timetables for emissions
reductions, the Administration stated:
``Neither subparagraph 2(a) nor subparagraph 2(b), whether
taken individually or jointly, creates a legally binding
target or timetable for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
Similarly, the Report of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations favorably reporting the Framework Convention states
that:
``Article 4.2b establishes an additional reporting
requirement for developed country parties, including those
with economies in transition, requiring them to report on
national policies and measures adopted pursuant to Article
4.2a, and on the projected impact of these measures on net
emissions up to the end of the decade, with the aim of
returning these emissions to their 1990 levels. This aim is
in the reporting section of article 4.2 and is not legally
binding.'' The Framework Convention was ratified by the
Senate with the further understanding that the Administration
could not agree to amendments of or protocols to the treaty
creating binding emissions reduction commitments without the
further consent of the Senate. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Report states:
``The committee notes that a decision by the Conference of
the Parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the
United States could deposit its instruments of ratification
for such an agreement.
``The committee notes further that a decision by the
executive branch to reinterpret the Convention to apply
legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions
of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the
`shared understanding' of the Convention between the Senate
and the executive branch and would therefore require the
Senate's advice and consent.
The Framework Convention is perhaps the most authoritative
statement of U.S. policy regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
It represented years.of effort both domestically and
internationally. The result of that effort is a plain
statement directly antithetical to EPA's claim that it has
discretionary authority to impose mandatory restrictions on
greenhouse gas emissions. To the contrary, Congress clearly
has refused to delegate such authority to the agency.
D. Other Congressional Action. on Global Warming.
Three other Congressional enactments regarding global
warming bear mentioning because they each demonstrate
Congress' intent to reserve for itself the decision on
whether regulation of carbon dioxide emissions should be
undertaken.
First, on December 22, 1987, Congress enacted its first
legislation specifically targeting the global warming
question, the National Climate Program Act. Congress chose
not to enact restrictions on the emission of greenhouse
gases. Instead, it explicitly recognized the need for an
international approach to the global warming issue, and it
recognized the need for further study of the issue. Towards
this end, the Act provides for the Secretary of State to
coordinate U.S. participation in international negotiations
regarding global climate change. And it provides that the
President, through EPA, shall be responsible for developing
and proposing to Congress a coordinated national policy on
global climate change.
Second, on November 16, 1990, Congress adopted the Global
Change Research Act, providing for the President to establish
a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences to coordinate
a ten year research effort.
Finally, on November 28, 1990, as Title XXIV of the Food
and Agriculture Act of 1990, Congress directed the Secretary
of Agriculture to establish a Global Climate Change Program
to research global climate agricultural issues and to provide
liaison with foreign countries on such issues.
These enactments are consistent with the approach taken by
Congress in the 1990 CAA Amendments, in EPAct and at Rio:
study the issue and participate in international
negotiations. However, no agency of the executive branch
possesses authority to regulate on such matter.
E. The Kyoto Protocol.
The international community has continued negotiations on
the global warming issue culminating in the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol would create legally binding mandates on
certain countries, including the United States, to restrict
greenhouse gas emissions by certain amounts as of certain
dates. As stated, prior to the negotiation of the Kyoto
Protocol, the Senate, by a vote of 95-0 passed a resolution
stating that the Senate would not ratify any treaty absent
meaningful participation from Third World countries and if
the treaty would damage the U.S. economy. The Administration
has not yet submitted the proposed protocol to the Senate for
ratification pending further international negotiations. The
Kyoto Protocol has no legal standing unless ratified by the
Senate.
F. Sum as to Congressional Climate Change Legislation.
Through nearly two decades of debate on what may be the
most important environmental issue of our time, Congress has
consistently rejected efforts to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions. Its intent could not be more plain: unless
Congress acts, neither EPA nor any other agency has authority
to restrict such emissions.
V. CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS DO NOT ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH
OR WELFARE.
Our analysis above has examined whether the CAA is intended
to regulate the changes to global climate that are assertedly
resulting from a human-induced enhancement of the natural
greenhouse effect. We stated at the outset that such analysis
is not dependent on whether or not carbon dioxide emissions
are, in fact, leading to dangerous climate change. We have
shown that, even if, arguendo it could be demonstrated
reliably that carbon dioxide emissions are leading to
dangerous climate change, EPA nevertheless may not regulate
such emissions under the CAA.
The available evidence, however, would not support a
finding that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering the
public health, welfare or environment. The Greening Earth
Society report that accompanies this legal analysis
demonstrates that, objectively viewed, the scientific
evidence of potential global climate change supports a
conclusion that there is no climatological catastrophe
underway or likely to occur, as is so often claimed.
We are, of course, familiar with the deferential standards
that apply when EPA is making complex technical judgments
relying on information ``from the frontiers of scientific
knowledge.'' We are also aware that EPA, given the
precautionary nature of the CAA, may regulate urder the
``endanger'' standard without definitive proof of actual
harm.
On the other hand, deference to technical agency
decisionmaking, does not trump the substantial evidence test
as to agency factual determinations or the arbitrary and
capricious standard as to policy decisions. EPA may regulate
under the ``endangerment'' standard only where there is a
finding of ``significant risk of harm.'' EPA must take a
``hard look'' at the evidence and engage in ``reasoned
decision making.'' Moreover, EPA has a burden to demonstrate
that its methodology is reliable, and such burden ``requires
more than reliance on the unknown, either by speculation, or
mere shifting of the burden of proof.'' The Greening Earth
Society report shows that the evidence on which EPA would
rely to show dangerous climate change as a result of carbon
dioxide emissions cannot meet these standards.
Application of the arbitrary and capricious test is
particularly important in judging the use by EPA of computer
simulation models as the basis for a conclusion that carbon
dioxide emissions are harming the public health, welfare or
environment. Again, courts will defer to agency expertise in
their reliance on computer models. But Courts will overturn
agency decisionmaking where reliance on a computer model was
arbitrary and capricious. In particular, oversimplifications
in models can render an agency decision arbitrary. Similarly,
agency decisionmaking will be deemed arbitrary where a model
incorporates assumptions which are known to be wrong and
which bear no rational relationship to known information
concerning the data being inputted or the phenomenon being
measured. Each step of an agency's analysis using a model
will be examined to ensure that ``the agency has not departed
from a rational course.'' Again, the Greening Earth Society
report shows the many technical flaws in the computer models
on which claims of a pending climate disaster are based. Use
of these models to supply the technical justification to
regulate carbon dioxide would be arbitrary. in sum, there is
no basis for EPA to regulate carbon dioxide either as a
matter of law under the terms of the CAA or as a matter of
fact under the ``endanger the public health, welfare or
environment'' standard.
CONCLUSION
The congressional testimony of the EPA Administrator that
EPA currently has authority to regulate carbon dioxide,
followed by the release of a legal opinion by its general
counsel supporting the Administrator's claim, raises the
question of whether EPA intends to move forward with carbon
dioxide regulation. Our analysis shows that any such effort
by EPA would be unlawful.
In particular, the plain language and structure of the CAA
does not support an effort to regulate carbon dioxide.
Similarly, the legislative history of the CAA and of the
various Congressional enactments regarding carbon dioxide
demonstrate Congress' express decision, based on years of
explicit and detailed consideration of the matter, not to
regulate
[[Page 11740]]
in the area of carbon dioxide and potential climate change.
Proponents of greenhouse gas regulation have tried
diligently through the years to obtain a different result.
They have not been successful. Unless Congress provides the
authority EPA plainly desires, the agency cannot regulate
carbon dioxide emissions.
Dated: October 12, 1998. Prepared by: National Mining
Association Legal Affairs Committee.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, April 10, 1998.
MEMORANDUM
Subject: EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by
Electric Power Generation Sources.
From: Jonathan Z. Cannon, General Counsel.
To: Carol M. Browner, Administrator.
I. Introduction and Background
This opinion was prepared in response to a request from
Congressman DeLay to you on March 11, 1998, made in the
course of a Fiscal Year 1999 House Appropriations Committee
Hearing. In the Hearing, Congressman DeLay referred to an EPA
document entitled ``Electricity Restructuring and the
Environment: What Authority Does EPA Have and What Does It
Need.'' Congressman DeLay read several sentences from the
document stating that EPA currently has authority under the
Clean Air Act (Act) to establish pollution control
requirements for four pollutants of concern from electric
power generation: nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2),
and mercury. He also asked whether you agreed with the
statement, and in particular, whether you thought that the
Clean Air Act allows EPA to regulate emissions of carbon
dioxide. You agreed with the statement that the Clean Air Act
grants EPA broad authority to address certain pollutants,
including those listed, and agreed to Congressman DeLay's
request for a legal opinion on this point. This opinion
discusses EPA's authority to address all four of the
pollutants at issue in the colloquy, and in particular,
CO2, which was the subject of Congressman DeLay's
specific question.
The question of EPA's legal authority arose initially in
the context of potential legislation addressing the
restructuring of the utility industry. Electric power
generation is a significant source of air pollution,
including the four pollutants addressed here. On March 25,
1998, the Administration announced a Comprehensive
Electricity Competition Plan (Plan) to produce lower prices,
a cleaner environment, increased innovation and government
savings. This Plan includes a proposal to clarify EPA's
authority regarding the establishment of a cost-effective
interstate cap and trading system for NOX
reductions addressing the regional transport contributions
needed to attain and maintain the primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The Plan does not
ask Congress for authority to establish a cap and trading
system for emissions of carbon dioxide from utilities as part
of the Administration's electricity restructuring proposal.
The President has called for cap-and-trade authority for
greenhouse gases to be in place by 2008, and the Plan states
that the Administration will consider in consultation with
Congress the legislative vehicle most appropriate for that
purpose.
As this opinion discusses, the Clean Air Act provides EPA
authority to address air pollution, and a number of specific
provisions of the Act are potentially applicable to control
these pollutants from electric power generation. However, as
was made clear in the document from which Congressman DeLay
quoted, these potentially applicable provisions do not easily
lend themselves to establishing market-based national or
regional cap-and-trade programs, which the Administration
favors for addressing these kinds of pollution problems.
II. Clean Air Act Authority
The Clean Air Act provides that EPA may regulate a
substance if it is (a) an ``air pollutant,'' and (b) the
Administrator makes certain findings regarding such pollutant
(usually related to danger to public health, welfare, or the
environment) under one or more of the Act's regulatory
provisions.
A. Definition of Air Pollutant
Each of the four substances of concern as emitted from
electric power generating units falls within the definition
of ``air pollutant'' under section 302(g). Section 302(g)
defines ``air pollutant'' as ``any air pollution agent or
combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical,
biological, [or] radioactive . . . substance or matter which
is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such
term includes any precursors to the formation of any air
pollutant, to the extent that the Administrator has
identified such precursor or precursors for the particular
purpose for which the term `air pollutant' is used.''
This broad definition states that ``air pollutant''
includes any physical, chemical, biological, or radioactive
substance or matter that is emitted into or otherwise enters
the ambient air. SO2, NOX,
CO2 and mercury from electric power generation are
each a ``physical [and] chemical . . . substance which is
emitted into . . . the ambient air,'' and hence, each is an
air pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
A substance can be an air pollutant even though it is
naturally present in air in some quantities. Indeed, many of
the pollutants that EPA currently regulates are naturally
present in the air in some quantity and are emitted from
natural as well as anthropogenic sources. For example,
SO2 is emitted from geothermal sources; volatile
organic compounds (precursors to ozone) are emitted by
vegetation; and particulate matter and NOX are
formed from natural sources through natural processes, such
as naturally occurring forest fires. Some substances
regulated under the Act as hazardous air pollutants are
actually necessary in trace quantities for human life, but
are toxic at higher levels or through other routes of
exposure. Manganese and selenium are two examples of such
pollutants. EPA regulates a number of naturally occurring
substances as air pollutants, however, because human
activities have increased the quantities present in the air
to levels that are harmful to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
B. EPA Authori!y to Regulate Air Pollutants
EPA's regulatory authority extends to air pollutants,
which, as discussed above, are defined broadly under the Act
and include SO2, NOX, CO2,
and mercury emitted into the ambient air. Such a general
statement of authority is distinct from an EPA determination
that a particular air pollutant meets the specific criteria
for EPA action under a particular provision of the Act. A
number of specific provisions of the Act are potentially
applicable to these pollutants emitted from electric power
generation. Many of these specific provisions for EPA action
share a common feature in that the exercise of EPA's
authority to regulate air pollutants is linked to a
determination by the Administrator regarding the air
pollutants' actual or potential harmful effects on public
health, welfare or the environment. See, e.g., sections 108,
109, 111(b), 112, and 115. See also sections 202(a), 211(c),
231, 612, and 615. The legislative history of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments provides extensive discussion of Congress'
purposes in adopting the language used throughout the Act
referencing a reasonable anticipation that a substance
endangers public health or welfare. One of these purposes was
``[t]o emphasize the preventative or precautionary nature of
the act, i.e., to assure that regulatory action can
effectively prevent harm before it occurs; to emphasize the
predominant value of protection of public health.'' H.R. Rep.
No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., at 49 (Report of the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce). Another
purpose was ``[t]o assure that the health of susceptible
individuals, as well as healthy adults, will be encompassed
in the term `public health,' . . . .'' Id. at 50. ``Welfare''
is defined in section 302(h) of the Act, which states:
``[a]ll language referring to effects on welfare includes,
but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops,
vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of
property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects
on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being,
whether caused by transformation, conversion, or combination
with other air pollutants.''
EPA has already regulated SO2, NOX
and mercury based on determinations by EPA or Congress that
these substances have negative effects on public health,
welfare, or the environment. While CO2, as an air
pollutant, is within EPA's scope of authority to regulate,
the Administrator has not yet determined that CO2,
meets the criteria for regulation under one or more
provisions of the Act. Specific regulatory criteria under
various provisions of the Act could be met if the
Administrator determined under one or more of those
provisions that CO2 emissions are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse effects on
public health, welfare, or the environment.
C. EPA Authority To Implement an Emissions Cap-and-Trade
Approach
The specific provisions of the Clean Air Act that are
potentially applicable to control emissions of the pollutants
discussed here can largely be categorized as provisions
relating to either state programs for pollution control under
Title I (e.g., sections 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, 126, and
Part D of Title I), or national regulation of stationary
sources through technology-based standards (e.g., sections
111 and 112). None of these provisions easily lends itself to
establishing market-based national or regional emissions cap-
and-trade programs.
The Clean Air Act provisions relating to state programs do
not authorize EPA to require states to control air pollution
through economically efficient cap-and-trade programs and do
not provide full authority for EPA itself to impose such
programs. Under certain provisions in Title I, such as
section 110, EPA may facilitate regional approaches to
pollution control and encourage states to cooperate in a
regional, cost-effective emissions cap-and-trade approach
(see Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Finding of Significant
Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing
[[Page 11741]]
Regional Transport of Ozone, 62 F.R. 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997)).
EPA does not have authority under Title I to require states
to use such measures, however, because the courts have held
that EPA cannot mandate specific emission control measures
for states to use in meeting the general provisions for
attaining ambient air quality standards. See Commonwealth of
Virginia v. EPA, 108 F.3d 1397 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Under
certain limited circumstances where states fail to carry out
their responsibilities under Title I of the Clean Air Act,
EPA has authority to take certain actions, which might
include establishing a cap-and-trade program. Yet EPA's
ability to invoke these provisions for federal action depends
on the actions or inactions of the states.
Technology-based standards under the Act directed to
stationary sources have been interpreted by EPA not to allow
compliance through intersource, cap-and-trade approaches. The
Clean Air Act provisions for national technology-based
standards under sections 111 and 112 require EPA to
promulgate regulations to control emissions of air pollutants
from stationary sources. To maximize the opportunity for
trading of emissions within a source, EPA has defined the
term ``stationary source'' expansively, such that a large
facility can be considered a ``source.'' Yet EPA has never
gone so far as to define as a source a group of facilities
that are not geographically connected, and EPA has long held
the view that trading across plant boundaries is
impermissible under sections 111 and 112, See, e.g., National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry, 59 Fed.
Reg. 19402 at 19425-26 (April 22, 1994).
III. Conclusion
EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act extends
to air pollutants, which, as discussed above, are defined
broadly under the Act and include SO2,
NOX, CO2, and mercury emitted into the
ambient air. EPA has in fact already regulated each of these
substances under the Act, with the exception of
CO2. While CO2 emissions are within the
scope of EPA's authority to regulate, the Administrator has
made no determination to date to exercise that authority
under the specific criteria provided under any provision of
the Act.
With the exception of the SO2 provisions focused
on acid rain, the authorities potentially available for
controlling these pollutants from electric power generating
sources do not easily lend themselves to establishing market-
based national or regional cap-and-trade programs, which the
Administration favors for addressing these kinds of pollution
problems. Under certain limited circumstances, where states
fail to carry out their responsibilities under Title I of the
Act, EPA has authority to take certain actions, which might
include establishing a cap-and-trade program. However, such
authority depends on the actions or inactions of the states.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
ranking member, the gentleman from the State of West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan has spent a considerable
amount of time on this issue during the last 3 years, beginning with
the conference report on the 1999 VA-HUD appropriation bill. The
gentleman mentions today the necessity for clarity with regard to this
issue, and suggests that there is a certain lack of clarity.
I would like to speak to that issue, because I respectfully disagree
that there is anything unclear about the issue or about the agreement
associated with the issue that was achieved in the context of the 1999
VA-HUD conference. In that conference it was made clear, to put it in
simple turns, that the EPA or the United States Government could not,
would not, under the terms of that conference report, and they
acknowledged that they would not if there was nothing in the conference
report, try to implement the Kyoto Protocol prior to its being ratified
by the United States Senate, meaning that they would not engage in a
rule-making proceeding to establish standards for American industry out
of any requirement, any agreement, flowing out of the Kyoto Protocol.
In that agreement, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan was very
much a part of that negotiation. Subsequent to that, he has worked in
the report language to modify that original report understanding. His
modifications, unfortunately, would muddy the original agreement and
would breach the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, or any
agency of the United States Government, to engage in international
conferences and discuss this topic, this global warming topic, in a
very general way or in a specific way.
Now, that does muddy the water, because that was never intended. We
do not want to gag the Environmental Protection Agency. We do not want
to prevent it from engaging developing economies around the world and
encouraging them to incorporate increasingly strict emissions standards
in their countries as their economies develop. We want to encourage
them to do that.
Under the gentleman's language, unfortunately, he challenges the
ability of any government agency to engage in those agreements. That is
why the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts is clear, because
it returns the understanding as it is set forth in the 1999 bill and
report and eliminates all of the confusion created by the gentleman
from Michigan's efforts subsequent to that time.
We want to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from
implementing, from engaging in any rule-making activity under Kyoto,
and they do not want to do it anyway. We want them also to engage the
world in this topic, so that the world can improve its environmental
standards.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), who has been a strong supporter and
leader in this effort to bring about some sanity.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, first I really want to commend the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for the tremendous job he has
done in taking the lead on this issue and also say that, as one who has
been working fervently to make certain that the Kyoto Protocol is not
implemented through the back door, I will say that I can live with this
amendment, because I know that we are working in a bipartisan manner to
ensure that the administration cannot implement the unratified Kyoto
Protocol.
I, too, have some concerns about clarifying the meaning and intent of
the exact language used in this amendment, and I am hopeful that as we
work through the process in a bipartisan way, we can get this figured
out, at least in conference. But let me say for the record, Mr.
Chairman, that the Senate does stand on record with the unanimous
bipartisan vote of 95 to 0 that called on the administration not to
sign the Kyoto Protocol, for lots of reasons, because it is going to
harm our economy in rural America; because it lets off the hook some of
our largest trade competitors, like China, India, Mexico and many
others who, quite frankly, will in the next few years be competing with
us on somewhat of a level playing field, but yet they will not have to
abide by any of the emissions restrictions that this protocol would
have us do here in the United States.
I am also worried because it is projected to throw about 2.5 million
Americans out of work. In my rural district, this is a huge problem,
because we, unlike the cities, are not experiencing the economic
prosperity that others are seeing today.
So, meanwhile, in continuing our efforts to find political
justification for this dangerously flawed treaty, the administration
has been issuing these climate assessments that even the EPA says are
nothing more than horror stories based on junk science. I want to make
certain that we, in fact, do this the right way.
Mr. Chairman, I am willing, with the approval of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), to accept this amendment; and I sure look
forward to continuing to work with colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to continue our bipartisan efforts to ensure that the
administration does not implement through the back door the very
dangerous Kyoto Protocol before the constitutionally required advise
and consent of the United States Senate.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan very much for all his work.
[[Page 11742]]
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think the question here is whether or not we
are going to implement the Kyoto Protocol, because we are not, because
that has not been ratified by the Senate. In my mind, the question is
do we exchange and do we have the opportunity and the ability to
exchange information about these climate change research ideas with the
international community?
Let me just share some of the research that has come out by about 99
percent of the scientists involved in this. The atmosphere contains
only a very tiny trace amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, and yet we know
through drilling in ice cores around the planet, evaluating the
landscape, looking at the seas, that in the last 10,000 years carbon
dioxide has increased about 1 degree centigrade every 1,000 years, with
the exception of the last century. It has increased by about 1 degree
centigrade in the last century.
If we put that in Fahrenheit degrees, just in this century, most of
it since World War II, carbon dioxide has increased 4 degrees since
World War II. Now, if we project that using models over the next
century, you get anywhere from 5 more degrees increase to 15 degrees
increase.
If we look at the atmosphere, if we look at carbon dioxide, we
understand that is the heat balance that protects the biological
diversity, the very life on this planet, the heat balance we call now
as laymen the greenhouse effect.
Mr. Chairman, there is another example I want to give to you from a
book on Laboratory Earth by a biologist from Stanford University, who
is respected throughout the world, not as a nutty scientist, but as a
reasonable, competent individual. Here is what he says: ``When we burn
a lump of coal today, we are recovering the carbon dioxide and the
solar heat of dinosaur times in fossil organic matter.
{time} 1315
While it took millions of years to make a coal deposit, we are
releasing the CO2 and other embedded elements in tens of years.'' What
took nature millions of years to lock up as far as carbon dioxide is
concerned, that greenhouse gas we are releasing in a matter of decades.
Will that have an effect on our climate? The answer is yes.
Scientists agree that it is going to have an effect on our climate.
Sure, there is a lot of dialogue, a lot of discussions about that, but
that is the important thing. We need to discuss that issue.
So I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
As usual, I find this a very interesting and stimulating discussion.
We never really have the time to get into the details, because it is
very complicated.
But why should we be suspicious of language changes, as we were here,
when we received the recent language change? The Clinton-Gore
administration year after year in their budget process have tried to
fund implementation of the Kyoto Treaty. It was obvious that there were
billions of dollars tucked into our budget originally, a treaty that he
did not present to the Senate, a treaty that was not debated and
properly approved.
I guess the question I would ask is why would any bright
representative of our government agree to such a horribly flawed
concept as the Kyoto Treaty? This is an agreement negotiated by our
Vice President who would force American businesses to purchase credits
from Third World developing countries who are not a part of the
agreement. Now, think about that. We debate foreign aid here a lot. We
are going to be requiring American businesses under this agreement to
be giving dollars to foreign-country developing businesses to compete
with us. Horribly flawed concept.
Now, I do not have time to get into detail, but we just heard from
the last speaker about such agreement. More than half of the scientists
in this country do not agree to the global warming concept. It is a
debate that should continue. But there is not agreement out there. In
fact, the evidence shows that most of the warming was preindustrial
age, not since we have been into fossil fuels in the last few decades.
This CO2, this evil force that we are proclaiming, it is
what is needed for plant life in this country. It is what makes
vegetation grow. Vegetation makes the exchange from CO2 to
oxygen. It is part of the life chain.
Many of those who are crying scare tactics on this are also against
cutting forests, but young growing forests are the best exchanger and
absorb more CO2 and give us more oxygen back. This is a
debate that unfortunately has not happened in this Congress. But we
continually hear the scare tactics that the seas are rising, the
shorelines are going to disappear, and that this country is going to be
in a disaster state.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, that is far from a fact, and we
should not be scaring people into this. This is a legitimate discussion
we should have, and no administration should be allowed to use funds to
sell their theory. They can exchange ideas with other countries, there
is no prohibition of that. But they should not be using resources to
sell their global warming scare concepts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver amendment which
will restore the 1998 agreement that allows the EPA to pursue common
sense policies on greenhouse gas emissions.
In 1992, President George Bush signed an international agreement that
required the U.S. to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. Eight years
later, the U.S. has failed even to make those moderate reductions.
Instead, our greenhouse gas emissions have increased by more than 10
percent, and there is no end in sight.
Some on the other side seem to favor a ``don't ask, don't tell''
policy on global warming. Unfortunately, silence will not make this
problem go away. Even the fossil fuel industry recognizes the threat of
global warming. BP-Amoco, Sunoco and Shell International have all
joined the Business Environmental Council, a group dedicated to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These companies have publicly stated
their belief that greenhouse emissions directly affect our climate.
Instead of fighting common sense solutions every step of the way, we
should be improving our energy efficiency, encouraging voluntary
reductions, and looking for the most cost-effective ways to cut
greenhouse gas emissions. I believe this amendment is a step in the
right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Olver amendment, which will
restore the 1998 agreement that allows the EPA to pursue common sense
policies on greenhouse gas emissions.
Once again, the Republican leadership wants to handcuff the EPA from
addressing the threat of global climate change.
Unfortunately, this rider is just one more sign that many in this
House are in a state of denial when it comes to climate issues.
It wasn't always this way.
In 1992, President George Bush signed an international agreement that
required the U.S. to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Eight years later, the U.S. has failed to make even those moderate
reductions.
Instead our greenhouse gas emissions have increased by more than 10
percent, and there is no end in sight.
Despite increasing emissions, it seems that the Republican policy on
greenhouse gases has regressed since 1992.
Language in this year's VA-HUD appropriations report would prevent
EPA from taking any action to stem the threat of climate change.
It's questionable if EPA would even be allowed to discuss climate
policy with other nations.
[[Page 11743]]
To make matters worse, this bill cuts funding for voluntary climate
change programs by $124 million.
Some on the other side seem to favor a ``don't ask, don't tell''
policy on global warming.
Unfortunately, silence will not make this problem go away.
Each day, the scientific community becomes more united in the belief
that greenhouse emissions have an effect on global temperature.
It now appears that the 1990s weren't just the hottest decade of the
last century, but perhaps of the last millennium.
Even the fossil fuel industry recognizes the threat of global
warming.
BP-Amoco, Sunoco and Shell International have all joined the Business
Environmental Council, a group dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
These companies have publicly stated their belief that greenhouse
emissions directly affect our climate.
They have even called for cuts in emissions that are more stringent
than those required by the Kyoto protocol.
Mr. Chairman, with only 4 percent of the world's population, the U.S.
emits more than 20 percent of global greenhouse gases.
Any solution to global climate change must include U.S.
participation.
Instead of fighting common sense solutions every step of the way, we
should be improving our energy efficiency, encouraging voluntary
reductions, and looking for the most cost effective ways to cut
greenhouse gas emissions.
This amendment is a step in the right direction, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, just for an inquiry, can I take it from
what the gentleman has just stated that he believes that we should
regulate CO2, carbon dioxide, or that the EPA has the authority to
regulate it?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has
expired.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, including the time to close; the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time. I do think this debate is what is best about the House of
Representatives. I think everyone who has spoken today is agreed on
fundamental policy, and that is Kyoto has not been ratified, it is not
the law of the land and it should not, therefore, be implemented.
We have had a continuing debate as far as the language that has been
included in a number of bills, and I am very pleased that the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver) have worked out a compromise.
In the limited time I have, I simply want to put this debate into
perspective. Kyoto did not come from the vacuum of space; it did not
come from Bill Clinton's mind. The fact is, it is a point on a
continuum that began under the George Bush administration pursuant to a
treaty President Bush signed on May 9, 1992, that was ratified by the
United States Senate on October 7 of 1992, and the instrument of
ratification was signed on October 13. That is where Kyoto came from.
It is not implemented, but there are discussions, there are
considerations taking place.
My concern about the language that has been included in a number of
bills is that we would be placing qualitative and quantitative
restrictions on thought, on judgment, on opinion, and on the
preexchange of information which, in the end, is to all of our benefit
to make sure that that is not impeded.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) for offering his amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for continuing to have an open mind on this
issue. Hopefully, all of us will be able to reach an appropriate
compromise that allows authorized, legal programs to deal with
environmental problems we face today to continue unimpeded while we
continue to negotiate enhancement of the Kyoto protocol.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Olver amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Olver amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment protects the younger generation, whom
otherwise would pay the bill and suffer the consequences of global
warming.
Global warming is the largest environmental issue for young adults,
because the long-term impacts could be disastrous and today's younger
generation will be left to deal with the costly impacts.
The human race is engaged in the largest and most dangerous
experiment in history--an experiment to see what will happen to our
health and our planet when we change our atmosphere and our climate.
The buildup of carbon dioxide and other ``greenhouse gases'' in our
atmosphere causes global warming. The main causes of carbon dioxide are
burning ever increasing quantities of coal, oil, and gas. These harmful
gases hold the sun's energy in our atmosphere and are causing our
world's temperature to increase.
Like a parked car on a hot day, the sun's heat comes in through car
windows, but cannot escape. Eventually, you have an unbearably hot car
and this is now happening to our planet.
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, a
panel of the world's best scientists, have concluded global warming is
a very real concern. The temperature has already risen as much as five
degrees in some regions. Today, we see glaciers melting, more heat-
related deaths, and a shift and increase in infectious diseases.
The most important step we can take to curb global warming is to
improve our nation's energy efficiency. Our cars and light trucks,
lighting, home appliances, and power plants could be made much more
efficient by simply installing the best current technology. Using the
best technology can also mean more jobs for more Americans.
But the language in this bill will hamper efforts to seek solutions
to this serious problem. We can't afford to play deaf and dumb to this
issue.
Vote for the Olver amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of this amendment. The amendment will ensure that
nothing we do here will undermine our ability to address the threat of
global warming to the extent authorized by current law.
In the last 2 years, we have had the Knollenberg amendment, which
would prevent the administration from taking any action that is
intended to implement the Kyoto protocol prior to ratification. What we
fear now is that the Knollenberg amendment not be used to interfere
with existing authorities and obligations under the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, the Clean Air Act, and the Constitution.
The fear that I have is not that we are going to implement the Kyoto
Treaty, but that the Knollenberg language will act as a gag rule on
people who are trying to implement other existing laws. That is
something that this Congress should not accept.
I would hope that we act sensibly on global warming. The American
people want us to find solutions to climate change. This amendment will
help end the harassment of staffers who are trying to find the smartest
way to protect the environment. I urge all Members to support this
amendment. It does not implement the Kyoto Treaty; it simply allows EPA
to act under existing authorities, whether a domestic law or a ratified
treaty.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
As I read the proposed amendment, it strengthens the committee
position that ensures the administration will not implement the Kyoto
protocol without prior congressional consent.
[[Page 11744]]
This was a key element in the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed by the
Senate in July of 1997. This congressional consent involves the Senate
in its constitutional role regarding treaties and involves both Houses
in approving and implementing legislation, regulation, programs and
initiatives. The amendment clarifies that activities authorized under
current law and funded by Congress will proceed.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time on this side to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment,
because fundamentally, when it comes to climate change, the House
should not adopt the posture of the ostrich. We are not compelled to
act by the Kyoto Treaty. We are compelled to act by common sense,
common sense to make sure by this amendment that we can move forward
and do what the law already authorizes people to do, which is to
continue to talk across the waters.
The Earth is heating up, and we are a cause. The northern hemisphere
is the hottest it has been in 1,000 years. The 1990s were the hottest
decade. The 3 hottest years in human history were 1995, 1997 and 1998.
Glaciers are rapidly receding. Bird populations are disappearing. Why?
Why? The answer is clear. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have
gone up 30 percent since the preindustrial age. They will go up, and
there should be no doubt about this. They will double, in fact, in the
next 100 years unless this House pulls its head out of the sand and
deals with climate change issues. That is a simple fact, and there is
nothing to debate about that subject.
Every 6th grader in this country understands that if we double
CO2 layers in the atmosphere, we will substantially increase
the temperatures in Chicago and heat deaths will increase in Chicago.
That is not alarmist. Human life will continue to persist, but Maple
trees may not in New England.
This House has got to act; the country understands that. Ford is
moving, Chrysler is moving, British Petroleum is moving. We need to
keep this country moving by a simple amendment that will continue to
allow us to do what we need to do.
{time} 1330
Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage Members on this issue, I think it
is our individual responsibility to read on this issue. If the
gentlemen will read the latest evidence, they will conclude we have a
responsibility to act, not because of the Kyoto, but because of common
sense.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the administration has negotiated some time ago the
Kyoto Protocol. They have yet to submit that treaty to the United
States Senate for ratification.
The Constitution demands the Senate's consent, and they will not get
it. This protocol places such severe restrictions on the United States
while exempting most countries, including China, Brazil, Mexico, and
India, from taking any measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions.
The administration took this course of action despite unanimous
support in the U.S. Senate for the Senate's advice in the form of the
Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations, and on
the conditions that the Protocol not adversely impact the economy of
this country.
In closing, let me just say that I support the amendment and look
forward to the report language to clarify what activities are and are
not authorized.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, as an active participant in the initial
floor debate on the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation I want to clarify
several issues.
I supported the effort of my good friend, Mr. Obey, to clarify EPA's
role. At that time we were concerned that EPA might violate the laws
against advocating a treaty that has not been ratified by the United
States Senate.
We agreed that we should curtail lobbying and other activities,
including implementing by regulation or statutory action a treaty which
is, A. not in the interest of the United States, and B. which is not
ratified and is not going to be ratified.
The amendment regarding the Kyoto Protocol funding limitation offered
by Mr. Olver to the VA/HUD appropriations bill today also raises the
issue of what authority EPA has under current law.
At this point, I would like to enter into the Record a letter I sent
to Mr. McIntosh, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National
Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, and Mr.
Calvert, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and the
Environment.
As the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990, I understand the boundaries on EPA authority. The
boundaries must be maintained and not allowed to grow through mission-
creep. I will insist on this point and be watching over EPA.
October 5, 1999.
Hon. David M. McIntosh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on
Government Reform, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based
on discussions between our staffs, about the disposition by
the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as
methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call
my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to
Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation
Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled ``The
Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean
Air Act'' prepared for the National Mining Association. The
latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the
1990 amendments.
First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any
provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas,
such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address
global climate change. The House, however, did include
provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed
amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points
out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and
global warming, along with provisions implementing the
Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol
related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate
conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of
November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the
CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and
819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions
separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers
to the ``Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' the Public law
does not specify that reference as the ``short title'' of all
of the provisions included the Public Law.
One of these free-standing provisions, section 821,
entitled ``Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases
contributing to Global Climate Change'' appears in the United
States code as a ``note'' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires
regulations by the EPA to ``monitor carbon dioxide
emissions'' from ``all affected sources subject to title V''
of the CAA and specifies that the emissions are to be
reported to the EPA. That section does not designate carbon
dioxide as a ``pollutant'' for any purpose.
Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled
``Clean Air Research,'' was primarily negotiated at the time
by the House and Senate Science Committees, which had no
regulatory jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title
amended section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c)
through (k). New subsection (g), entitled ``Pollution
Prevention and Control,'' calls for ``non-regulatory
strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention.''
While it refers, as noted in the EPA memorandum, to carbon
dioxide as a ``pollutant,'' House and Senate conferees never
agreed to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant for
regulatory or other purposes.
Based on my review of this history and my recollection of
the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the
House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory
provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced
section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas
emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air
Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the
United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990
the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately
led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was
ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the
Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing,
and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation
authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse
gases.
I hope that this is responsive.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member.
[[Page 11745]]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, and for construction, alteration,
repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to
exceed $75,000 per project, $34,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2002.
Buildings and Facilities
For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$23,931,000, to remain available until expended.
hazardous substance superfund
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project;
$1,270,000,000 (of which $100,000,000 shall not become
available until September 1, 2001), to remain available until
expended, consisting of $630,000,000, as authorized by
section 517(a) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), as amended by Public Law
101-508, and $640,000,000 as a payment from general revenues
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as
authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated
to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a)
of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
under this heading, $11,500,000 shall be transferred to the
``Office of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain
available until September 30, 2002, and $35,000,000 shall be
transferred to the ``Science and technology'' appropriation
to remain available until September 30, 2002.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Bilirakis
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 14.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Bilirakis:
Page 62, line 2, under the heading, ``Hazardous Substance
Superfund'', after ``2002'' insert ``; Provided further, That
of amounts appropriated under this heading, $2,000,000 shall
be available for purposes of the National Hazardous Waste and
Superfund Ombudsman''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. At the appropriate time, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Norwood) will be recognized.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment No. 14 would create a specific line item
of funding for the Office of the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund
Ombudsman within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I am offering this amendment with the intent of asking for unanimous
consent to withdraw it after Members who wish to be heard on this issue
have had an opportunity to do so. I appreciate the willingness of the
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and members of the Committee
to work with me as this legislation moves forward to ensure adequate
funding within the EPA budget for the Office of the National Hazardous
Waste and Superfund Ombudsman.
I have experienced, Mr. Chairman, firsthand the Ombudsman's important
work in connection with the Stauffer Superfund site located in my
congressional district and my hometown, I might add, in Tarpon Springs,
Florida. I invited the Ombudsman to conduct an independent review of
the Stauffer site when it became apparent to me that many of my
constituents felt that they were shut out of the process by the EPA.
For example, EPA initially failed to address local residents'
concerns about the appropriate cleanup standard for arsenic. In
addition, EPA has not conducted any sinkhole studies to determine if
the proposed remedy, which includes consolidating the waste on-site
into a capped mound, will remain intact should sinkholes develop.
Sinkholes are common in the area, and should the proposed remedy fail
due to sinkhole development, the waste could contaminate the drinking
water of the local community.
The Ombudsman highlighted these concerns in town meetings I sponsored
to discuss the proposed clean-up plan for the Stauffer site. Because of
his actions, the EPA has amended the consent decree for the clean-up
plan and has required additional studies.
However, something is clearly wrong at the EPA. While I have been
assured publicly and privately by high-level EPA officials that they
fully support the activities of the Ombudsman, their actions suggest a
different attitude.
For instance, after I planned a June 5 public hearing with the
Ombudsman, EPA officials threatened to withhold the necessary funding
to continue his investigation in Tarpon Springs. With the help of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), I was able to exact a guarantee from Administrator Browner
that adequate funds would be provided for the Ombudsman's important
work.
During that June 5 meeting, however, it became clear that EPA did not
intend to cooperate with the Ombudsman's investigation. EPA Region IV
representatives stated at the outset that they would make a brief
presentation and take only 10 minutes of questions, and then they would
leave, denying my constituents and the Ombudsman a chance to ask some
very important questions about the revised consent decree.
In the middle of a question, Mr. Chairman, they stood and walked out
without saying a word. I was outraged by the contempt displayed by
these public servants toward the taxpaying public.
My amendment seeks to ensure that the Ombudsman has the adequate
funding to continue his independent investigations. The amendment
creates a specific line item of funding for the Office of the National
Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman. Currently, funding for that
office is not specifically designated within the VA-HUD appropriations
act.
That line item will ensure sufficient resources are made available
within the EPA's budget to allow the Ombudsman to continue to advocate
on behalf of local communities afflicted with the Superfund sites.
The other amendment No. 13 that I intended to offer would establish a
$2 million line item of funding while also expanding the statutory
authorities of the Ombudsman to make them consistent with model
standards for ombudsmen promulgated by the American Bar Association and
other national organizations. These provisions are necessary to
preserve the integrity and independence of their investigations and
prevent interference by EPA officials for political purposes.
Because this amendment would be subject to a point of order as
legislating on an appropriations bill, and because I do not want to
waste the time of the assembly, I have decided not to offer it today.
However, I want to reiterate how important it is that Superfund
ombudsmen be allowed to continue to operate independently, underlined
independently, of the very agency they often investigate.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents benefit enormously from these advocacy
efforts. As we have learned in Tarpon
[[Page 11746]]
Springs, Florida, it can be very difficult to overcome EPA
intransigence. The ombudsmen are critical to give local communities a
voice in the clean-up process. I urge all of my colleagues to protect
the interests of their constituents in the Superfund clean-up process
by supporting necessary funding for that office.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) had been
previously recognized to claim the time in opposition.
Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the
committee, wish to claim the time in opposition?
Mr. WALSH. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I claim part of the time in opposition due to the fact
that there is not enough time to discuss this very important issue, but
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis).
We need to grant the ombudsmen subpoena power. We need to grant the
ombudsmen subpoena power because there are some grave injustices being
committed at the EPA, oftentimes with inadequate and bogus science. The
EPA needs to be held accountable to the people that they were created
to protect.
For my fellow Members who may not be familiar with this situation,
the EPA Ombudsman's office is or should be a final remedy within the
EPA for anyone with a dispute or grievance with that agency. We all
want to hold lawsuits to a minimum, particularly when taxpayer dollars
are involved.
In numerous other fields, this body has encouraged arbitration in
lieu of litigation as a tried and true method of holding down court
costs while still protecting the consumers. It also opens up the
crowded court dockets, frankly, for cases that truly need to be in
court.
This is the purpose of the EPA Ombudsman's office. There is, however,
a very large problem with how the program is currently being operated.
Current funding has allowed only two arbitrators for the entire
country, two for the entire country. Those two officials have no
binding legal authority to conduct any real investigation into a
complaint. They cannot force truthful testimony, the release of
necessary documents, or other evidence. They do not even have the legal
power to enforce the EPA to participate in a hearing.
This lack of funding, lack of staff, lack of legal authority has
given the EPA the ability to run roughshod over local and State
government and private citizens without any accountability outside of
Federal court action, which is often a practical impossibility for
those who have been injured.
My constituents unfortunately have firsthand experience in what this
shortcoming really means in real life. In Augusta, Georgia, my farmers
used sludge from a waste treatment plant as fertilizer on their fields
after EPA recommended the procedure as a safe and practical means of
eliminating sludge.
The farmers explicitly followed the EPA guidelines. It now appears
this recommended procedure is being seriously questioned, and it may
have been under question as the farmers were being advised to do so.
Upon this discovery, did the EPA do anything to look into this
matter? No. They closed ranks and did everything possible to deflect
responsibility for the matter. That is not accountability. We do not
know who is right or wrong in this fiasco at home, but we do believe
that the EPA Ombudsman should be allowed to find the truth.
Currently, the Ombudsman has limited authority to examine
questionable EPA dealings. We need to give this office adequate
oversight power to watch what the EPA is doing. They are accountable to
taxpayers, and we need to make sure that they uphold that mission.
The Bilirakis amendment would give the Ombudsman the legal power to
force EPA to participate in a grievance hearing. My word, the Chairman
has a hearing in his hometown and the EPA will not even participate. It
gives the Ombudsman the ability to compel the agency to testify
truthfully. For any citizen, business, or agency in this country to be
held accountable for their actions, it is crucial that they be required
by law to cooperate with the process of an independent investigation of
a complaint.
This measure provides this critical oversight for EPA. It is long
overdue. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for
bringing this to our attention. Support this amendment. Support the
Ombudsman for the EPA.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this to the attention of
the subcommittee. This is an important issue. He has shown real
leadership in the course of removing toxic waste or remediating toxic
waste.
The Ombudsman is in an important position, and we will work with the
gentleman through the conference to make sure this important position
is adequately funded.
Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, ninety-eight weeks ago, EPA Administrator
Carole Browner, gave Ombudsman Robert Martin clearance to conduct a
preliminary review of the Industrial Excess Landfill (IEL) superfund
site in my district.
I know that, in addition to be going asked to look at the IEl site,
Mr. Martin has experienced any upswing in calls for his attention to
similar sites across the country--in fact, he advised me in May that he
is actively working on at least 25 sites.
But the clock continues to tick by for the people of Lake Township in
Ohio's Stark County. I can only assume that the delays in issuing the
findings of his preliminary review are a result of budgetary
constraints. If this is the case, then the solution offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) will be of great help to our
community.
I have high hopes that Mr. Martin will resolve this issue at long
last. The substantial delays--the report was first promised to be ready
in September of 1998--exacerbates any threat to public safety. I hope
that the Ombudsman will be effective in helping Township officials and
the nearby residents identify testing protocols that will help them
find peace of mind and the best solutions for this troubled site.
Again, I will say, if this amendment will speed the process at the IEL
site, I am certainly for it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Bilirakis Amendment, which earmarks $2 million for the activities of
the EPA's Ombudsman.
The office of The Ombudsman performs a vital function that is
essential to ensuring that the health and safety of communities living
near hazardous waste sites are not compromised.
Most importantly, the Ombudsman is the only entity that is truly
independent. Our constituents can be assured that, if the Ombudsman
conducts a review of a particular site, that there will be a fair,
thorough and objective analysis done.
This is an essential office that desperately needs funding.
$2 million will not bust that bank.
For a very, very modest investment, the taxpayers are getting a huge
return.
I think the country is lucky to have the services of Bob Martin, the
EPA Ombudsman.
He is highly competent, he is honest and he is effective.
I urge approval of the amendment, and I commend the gentlemen from
Florida for bringing this amendment forward.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, today I speak in support of providing
additional funds to support the Environmental Protection Agency's
National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman. The Office of the
Ombudsman has been instrumental in providing further investigation and
access to information for the public on a number of complicated
Superfund sites across the nation.
There are many communities across the United States impacted by years
of hazardous waste disposal. The very laws and agencies involved in
cleaning up these very dangerous sites often become mired in legal
tangles and beaucratic inertia. The Office of the Ombudsman has been an
ally of citizens to further insured that public health and the
environment reman at the forefront in clean up decisions at Superfund
sites. The Ombudsman also plays
[[Page 11747]]
an important role regarding oversight of the EPA, ensuring that harmful
decisions are corrected and that information surrounding Superfund
sites is available for the public.
In my district, the Office of the Ombudsman was useful in
investigating the Shattuck Waste Disposal Site in Denver. The Ombudsman
redirected EPA's focus by fostering greater public participation in
EPA's decision to allow radioactive waste to remain in an urban
neighborhood. To better protect public health and the environment, I
believe it is appropriate that the Office of the Ombudsman receive
adequate funds to sustain their mission of advocating for substantive
public involvement in EPA decisions.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
leaking underground storage tank program
For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and
for construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $75,000 per project,
$79,000,000, to remain available until expended.
oil spill response
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $15,000,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, and to remain available until expended.
state and tribal assistance grants
For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $3,176,957,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $1,200,000,000 shall be
for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended; $825,000,000 shall be for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, none of the funds made
available under this heading in this Act, or in previous
appropriations Acts, shall be reserved by the Administrator
for health effects studies on drinking water contaminants;
$75,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering,
planning, design, construction and related activities in
connection with the construction of high priority water and
wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico
Border, after consultation with the appropriate border
commission; $8,000,000 shall be for grants to the State of
Alaska to address drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages;
$1,068,957,000 shall be for grants, including associated
program support costs, to States, federally recognized
tribes, interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air
pollution control agencies for multi-media or single media
pollution prevention, control and abatement and related
activities, including activities pursuant to the provisions
set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-134, and for
making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air Act for
particulate matter monitoring and data collection activities:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 603(d)(7) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the
limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control
revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the
fund shall not apply to amounts included as principal in
loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2001 and prior years
where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund,
to the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable
by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other
assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the
fund, including administration of the fund: Provided further,
That notwithstanding section 518(f ) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the Administrator is authorized to use
the amounts appropriated for any fiscal year under section
319 of that Act to make grants to Indian tribes pursuant to
section 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, all claims for
principal and interest registered through any current grant
dispute or any other such dispute hereafter filed by the
Environmental Protection Agency relative to construction
grants numbers C-180840-01, C-180840-04, C-470319-03, and C-
470319-04, are hereby resolved in favor of the grantee.
Point of Order
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
language beginning with the words ``except that'' appearing at page 63,
line 4, and following through the words ``drinking water contaminants''
on line 9 violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives prohibiting legislation on an appropriations bill.
The language in question countermands the directive given to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in section 1452(n)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act that she reserve $10 million of funds
appropriated to the drinking water State revolving funds for health
effects studies on drinking water contaminants.
As such, Mr. Chairman, it changes current law and constitutes a
violation, as I have said earlier, of clause 2 of rule XXI. I must
regrettably insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on this point
of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that this provision
explicitly supersedes existing law, in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
administrative provision
For fiscal year 2001 and thereafter, the obligated balances
of sums available in multiple-year appropriations accounts
shall remain available through the seventh fiscal year after
their period of availability has expired for liquidating
obligations made during the period of availability.
Executive Office of the President
office of science and technology policy
For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 and 6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $5,150,000.
council on environmental quality and office of environmental quality
For necessary expenses to continue functions assigned to
the Council on Environmental Quality and Office of
Environmental Quality pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, the Environmental Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, and Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, $2,900,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding section 202 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1970, the Council shall consist
of one member, appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, serving as chairman and
exercising all powers, functions, and duties of the Council.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
office of inspector general
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $33,661,000, to be derived from the Bank
Insurance Fund, the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and
the FSLIC Resolution Fund.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
disaster relief
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), $300,000,000, and, notwithstanding 42
U.S.C. 5203, to remain available until expended, of which
$5,500,000 shall be transferred to ``Emergency management
planning and assistance'' for the consolidated emergency
management performance grant program; of which $30,000,000
shall be transferred to the ``Flood map modernization fund''
account; and up to $50,000,000 may be obligated for pre-
disaster mitigation projects and repetitive loss buyouts (in
addition to funding provided by 42 U.S.C. 5170c) following
disaster declarations.
{time} 1345
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boyd
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boyd:
Page 66, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,609,220,000)''.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a
point of order.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
[[Page 11748]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district in North Florida that has been
hit by a hurricane or tropical storm almost every year in recent
history. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is the 911 service
that we all rely on when disaster strikes. In order to ensure that FEMA
has the resources necessary to provide relief to disaster victims, the
administration and the Congress are supposed to set aside the
sufficient funds to cover the average yearly cost for disasters for the
last 5 years.
This year, the administration did its job, and they requested $2.9
billion for FEMA to provide disaster relief. Now, this money is used to
provide aid to families and individuals, clear debris, repair
infrastructure damages to our communities, any damages that are caused
by Presidentially declared natural disasters.
Unfortunately, because of the completely unrealistic spending
constraints placed on this bill, FEMA only received $300 million for
disaster assistance in this bill. This is over $2.4 billion less than
what was appropriated last year by this Congress and $2.6 billion less
than the 5-year average that we should have placed in this account to
ensure that FEMA has the resources that they need.
Now, many of the opponents of this amendment will argue that we can
quickly pass an emergency supplemental when disaster assistance is
needed. Well, let us just take a look at how quickly supplementals move
in this Congress. Five months ago, this House passed this year's
emergency supplemental. We are still waiting on our colleagues in the
Senate to act on this legislation.
Is that the answer that my colleagues want to give a family who just
lost everything in a natural disaster or to their community who just
lost its infrastructure to a disaster. What happens when this money is
needed and Congress has recessed during the election year and is back
home campaigning in October or November? How long will it take for
Congress to come back into session and enact a supplemental?
Now, many of my fellow fiscally responsible colleagues will point out
this is emergency spending and does not have offsets. That is true, it
is. However, let us talk about the cost of supplementals. If we do not
do this in the regular order and do it in emergency supplemental, we
are likely to have a much larger price tag than the $2.6 billion that
we are asking to refill this account. In other words, pay up now or pay
a lot more later when we come back to do the emergency supplemental.
The question is very simple. Are we going to admit that this money
will be spent in the regular order of the appropriations process and
provide the funding needed to meet ongoing emergency situations that we
know are going to occur, or are we going to continue to play the
budgetary games and pretend that we are not going to spend this money?
If we choose the latter, we are fooling ourselves.
I ask each of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, this question: Do they
want to tempt fate? We are going to have floods, fires, we have got
fires in eight States going on right now, hurricanes and winter storms.
Do my colleagues want to go home after a natural disaster hits and tell
their people that help is on the way, or do they want to tell them they
decided to play budget games with our future and did not provide FEMA
with adequate resources?
I urge my colleagues to do what is right for their constituents. I
urge the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) to not insist upon his
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd)
for bringing up this issue because the American public needs to be
informed on how we are operating.
What the gentleman from Florida is really saying is we are playing a
smoke and mirrors game as far as emergency funding in this country, and
that, in fact, we have spent more than $2.7 billion each of the last 5
years on emergency, yet we fail to plan for the rainy days for the
constituencies that we have in this country and for the emergencies
that they face. His point is a good one. We should, in fact, be
budgeting within the 302(b)s and within the budget of this Congress.
Now, let us talk about why it is not. The reason it is not in there
is because when we are all said, done, and through this year, we will
reach back into year 2000 money and pay for emergency spending and not
have to account for it. Until we get new updates, what we will really
be taking that money from is Medicare. That money will come from
Medicare.
So I want to commend the gentleman from Florida. I think his point is
right on. We need to be budgeting as a part of the budget process, and
we need to be appropriating yearly this amount of money. It comes with
being part of the fiscal discipline and the budgetary process that is
open and honest. This one is not.
What we are going to do with FEMA and how we are going to fund it to
you, we all know we will fund it, the question is will we fund it
honestly or will we reach back and claim the surplus last year and then
steal the money, not tell the American public that the money that is
going to be spent in fiscal 2001 is actually their 2000 that we, at one
time, called a surplus.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have any additional speakers at this point in
time, so by way of closing, I would just like to thank the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for his statement. He is right. He and I
have worked together on budgetary honesty, fiscal responsibility, and I
think that most of the people of this Nation want their government to
perform certain functions. But they also want their government to be
honest and make sure that we understand that those functions are going
to be paid for so that we do not have to come back later with smoke and
mirrors or we do not have to borrow money to fund those particular
functions.
This is a function that this Federal Government will perform. When a
disaster hits, whether it be a hurricane or a fire or a winter storm or
a tornado, those natural disaster events occur all over this country
every year, the Federal Government, through FEMA, will step up to
assist those local communities and those families that have been
affected.
The 5-year average cost of that assistance is $2.9 billion, $2.9
billion, Mr. Chairman. We have appropriated about 10 percent of that
money in this bill. I think that it is not being honest with the public
in terms of doing our budget. We all know that later on we will come
back and do this through a supplemental emergency appropriation. At
that point in time, it is likely to cost us a lot more money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I do reserve the point of order. I just wanted to
explain that
[[Page 11749]]
both of these gentleman are right. We should appropriate these funds
through the proper, through the normal appropriations process, and we
do need to have funds in the pipeline available. The reason that we did
not appropriate additional emergency funds in this bill is because
there are currently $2 billion in the pipeline. The money is there. It
is available. If this year continues to proceed as it has, those funds
will be available through the fall into the spring. Will we do another
emergency supplemental in the spring? I would suspect we will. We seem
to do one every year. But the fact of the matter is we did not
appropriate additional funds because we have money in the pipeline to
deal with an emergency.
So that basically is the reason that I would reserve the point of
order.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just make one final point. If in fact we need
$2.9 billion and there is $2 billion in the pipeline, then $900 million
out of this appropriation bill should have been set aside, appropriated
for that purpose, and it was not. It was not because we know we can
reach back. It is easier to spend your money, Mr. Taxpayer, Mrs.
Taxpayer, than it is to not spend it. That is why, in fact, it is not.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim 30 seconds
of the time that I have yielded back.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will reclaim 30 seconds for each side.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
who I think is one of the outstanding Members of this body and does a
great job as chairman. I would like to say that the $1.7 billion that
is in the pipeline now for FEMA, we have talked to FEMA about that.
They expect that that will probably last through the end of the fiscal
year and maybe through the end of the calendar year. But they expect
soon after the end of this calendar year that they would be very
nervous if we did not fill this pipeline again.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to highlight one of the most
egregious problems in this severely deficient VA-HUD appropriations
bill.
Earlier today, my good friend Mr. Boyd, offered an amendment to
increase funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency by $2.7
billion dollars, and match the President's budget request for this
agency.
Incredibly, when our Nation is facing potentially one of the worst
hurricane seasons ever to be recorded, the majority party instead
proposes to cut funding for FEMA, the agency that responds to such
disasters.
For those Members whose memories are short, let me remind them that
in my state last year, nearly 60 people lost their lives and more than
$6 billion dollars in damage occurred in the space of a month, due to
hurricanes.
My state is still suffering from the after effects of Hurricanes
Dennis, Floyd and Irene, and we are still working to get emergency
assistance from Congress.
The other side says: let's not have money in the pipeline, ready to
come to aid of any part of America that suffers a disaster.
Instead, they say, we'll just take care of it in a supplemental, even
though it may mean a delay of months before the assistance can be
delivered.
Victims of Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina still reside in
temporary housing, and it grieves me to think they could be hit by
another hurricane before they have an opportunity to finally leave
their current shelters.
The striking down of the Boyd amendment calls into question certain
priorities being set by the other side.
Do we want to have the funds available when disaster strikes, or do
we want to make sure we have enough money to give a $1 trillion dollar
tax cut?
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of Budget Totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000
(House Report 106-683). This amendment would provide new budget
authority in excess of the subcommittee suballocation made under
section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act,
that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary
budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of
such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) would
increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill.
Because of the attending emergency designation, the amendment
automatically occasions an increase in the section 302(a) allocation to
the Committee on Appropriations, but it does not occasion an automatic
increase in the section 302(b) suballocation for the pending bill.
As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is, therefore, sustained. The amendment is not in
order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the foregoing
amounts are designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended:
Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to
the extent that an official budget request for a specific
dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
Point of Order
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that on page 67,
lines 4 through 14 constitute legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair in that regard.
The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the Chair finds
that this provision explicitly supersedes existing law in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
disaster assistance direct loan program account
For the cost of direct loans, $1,295,000, as authorized by
section 319 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That these funds are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $19,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan program, $420,000.
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
including hire and purchase of motor vehicles as authorized
by 31 U.S.C. 1343; uniforms, or allowances therefor, as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the
per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate payable for
senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376; expenses of
attendance of cooperating officials and individuals at
meetings concerned with the work of emergency preparedness;
transportation in connection with the continuity of
Government programs to the same extent and in the same manner
as permitted the Secretary of a Military Department under 10
U.S.C. 2632; and not to exceed $2,500 for official reception
and representation expenses, $190,000,000.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Blagojevich).
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, on May 12, 1998, 17-month-old Daniel
Keysar of Chicago, Illinois was strangled to death when a portable crib
at a day care center collapsed on his throat. Just 3 months after that,
10-month-old William Curan of Fair Haven, New Jersey suffered the same
fate. At least 13 children have died in these types of portable cribs.
These are tragic deaths, Mr. Chairman, causing inexpressible sorrow
to the parents. They did not have to happen. The portable cribs in
which these
[[Page 11750]]
infants died had been recalled 5 years earlier, but nobody knew.
Despite efforts of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to notify the
public of the dangers posed by these cribs, over 1.2 million may still
be in use today.
Mr. Chairman, the Consumer Product Safety Commission handles recalls
of defective products and would make information about these recalls
more accessible to the public. Specifically, we are seeking to
establish a comprehensive Consumer Product Safety Commission listing
all of the children's products subject to recall or corrective action
over the last 15 years. It would strengthen the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's ability to notify consumers of truly dangerous products
and would enable the CPSC to monitor the effectiveness of product
recalls.
{time} 1400
Let us make sure that no other child dies as a result of a product
that has been recalled and the public was not made aware.
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's
concerns; and I think it might be possible to find a solution in the
conference, and I will certainly bring the gentleman's concern to the
attention of the conferees.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I also share the gentleman's concerns. We can certainly
try to address this issue in the conference with the other body, and I
appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. It is particularly
poignant, and it certainly does need to be addressed; and I hope we can
address it in conference. I appreciate the gentleman bringing it to our
attention.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) designate
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to strike the last word?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by extending
congratulations to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, and
the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan),
for their fine work under challenging circumstances. I would also like
to extend congratulations to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease),
chairing this very, very important measure.
I rise, along with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rogan), who shares representing Pasadena, California, to bring to the
attention of my friend, the gentleman from Syracuse, New York, some
concerns I have about efforts in the other body to transfer away from
Pasadena's Jet Propulsion Laboratory some of its important functions. I
believe these efforts are unjustified and that they would hinder the
ability of NASA to carry out its very important scientific mission.
As the gentleman knows, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the lead
U.S. center for unmanned exploration of the solar system. JPL has led
the world in exploring the solar system with robotics spacecraft by
visiting all known planets except Pluto. Over the last several years,
JPL has saved taxpayer money by turning to outside vendors, wherever
appropriate, and reducing its workforce by almost 30 percent from its
1992 high.
In fiscal year 2000, for example, 41 percent of JPL's
Telecommunication and Mission Operations Directorate is already
contracted out to outside vendors for routine services. So they have
demonstrated a very clear and strong commitment at JPL to contract out
whenever possible.
While JPL contracts out routine services where appropriate, many
functions are not routine and cannot be properly performed by outside
vendors. Space communications, for example, Mr. Chairman, requires
highly specialized capabilities. To accomplish this mission, JPL
developed the Deep Space Network, a highly advanced system of powerful
antennae designed to communicate with our planetary missions. The DSN
is more than just a communications device, however. It is an incredibly
powerful scientific instrument used in many radio-astronomy
experiments.
Last year, Congress asked NASA to study the idea of transferring all
of JPL's Telecommunication and Mission Operations Directorate to a
private contractor under the Consolidated Space Operations Contract,
also known as CSOC. This would include the operations of the entire
deep space network as well as the flight operations of current and
future missions, including Galileo, Cassini, Ulysses, and Voyager. NASA
conducted the study and, in a letter to Congress, recommended against
such a transfer because the speculative savings were based on erroneous
assumptions and such an action would introduce an extreme amount of
risk in the mission operations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague who chairs the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who is very supportive of this
effort, I would like to say that we strongly agree, as I know my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), does, with this
report that has come out. It has come to my attention that our friends
in the other body may be seeking to direct NASA to transfer these
functions to the CSOC contract despite the findings that came out in
NASA's report. This action would be devastating to NASA's space
exploration program as well as to the men and women who serve this
Nation at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) and his fellow House conferees strongly oppose any attempt to
cripple NASA's planetary exploration program by transferring essential
aspects of JPL to an outside contractor.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his distinguished service on the Committee on Rules. I
want to thank him for bringing this to our attention, as well as the
other gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), who is a fighter and an
advocate for JPL.
My goal has always been to invest the resources of the Nation wisely.
While this means getting the most out of every dollar we spend, it does
not mean being penny-wise and pound-foolish. There is no other
organization in the world that possesses the knowledge and the
capabilities of JPL for deep space exploration. We must fully utilize
the talents of the men and women of JPL in order to succeed.
The recent difficulties in the Mars program have taught us all the
dangers of dividing important capabilities between lab and outside
contractors. I wish to assure the gentleman that I will not accept any
proposal to transfer these functions away from JPL.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for
his very supportive comments and appreciate his commitment to this
extremely important program and also his kind words not only about the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory but about my friend, the gentleman from
Pasadena, California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROGAN. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend and
neighbor to the east, the distinguished chairman of our Committee on
Rules, for yielding to me and also for his incredible leadership on
this particular area.
I also want to express, on behalf of all of the employees and
families at JPL, our deep appreciation to the gentleman from New York,
our distinguished subcommittee chairman, for helping us in this
particular area.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dreier was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
[[Page 11751]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rogan).
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, what I just wanted to share with my
colleagues is that a visit to JPL is an incredible experience. When one
goes there, one sees not only the incredible benefits they have made
with respect to space exploration but what JPL has done for our
national economy with the spin-off technology that has come out of
there, from robotics surgery, to breast cancer research, data
compression, laser technology, global communications, and the list goes
on and on.
To contract this out now would have a devastating effect not just on
JPL but upon our technology, because we cannot contract out the
cumulative knowledge and experience of these people, these incredibly
dedicated men and women.
So, once again, I want to urge the subcommittee Chairman, in his
dealings with the other body, to do as the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules has suggested. Let us keep this where the knowledge is founded,
and in doing so we help not just our Nation but our economy, as well as
continuing to get the incredible advancements we have had in space
exploration.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my
friend for his contribution and his strong commitment to addressing
this very, very important national need.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), also a fellow New York Yankee
fan, to engage in a colloquy with me.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and my neighbor,
and I just want to say that the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), does great work for all of this
Nation, and we New Yorkers are particularly proud of the work that he
does.
I rise today, Mr. Chairman, with concerns I have regarding an
important issue that affects my region of the country but, sadly, I
think, a growing part of the Nation is being affected as well, and it
is certainly the greatest environmental challenge for the Adirondack
Mountains of New York, and that is the issue of acid rain.
The Members of the New York congressional delegation, in particular,
my Adirondack neighbor to the north, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh), as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), have been very aggressive in combating the toxic rain
that is falling on our region and killing our lakes and forests.
Specifically, I would like to address three acid rain monitoring
programs at the EPA that I fear are currently in danger of being
dismantled.
First, earlier this year, EPA announced a decision to discontinue
funding for the Mountain Acid Deposition Project, MADPRO, under its
Office of Research and Development. This program is doing important
work in monitoring cloud water chemistry and quantifying the
debilitating effects of acid rain on our region.
Operating since 1994, the MADPRO cloud monitoring program has located
one of its three monitoring sites at Whiteface Mountain, in the heart
of the Adirondack Park, I know a place near and dear to the chairman's
heart. Thankfully, under pressure from many of us, EPA this month
reversed its earlier decision to discontinue funding. However, I remain
concerned about the long-term commitment of the EPA to this important
initiative.
Secondly, I want to express continued concern for the Clean Air
Status and Trends Network, CASTNet. In 1997, there was concern that
CASTNet was at risk of being defunded; and since that time, Congress
has set a floor for the funding of that program.
Lastly, I am concerned about important Temporally Integrated
Monitoring of Ecosystems/Long-Term Monitoring Network, TIME/LTM, which
measures water chemistry in lakes and streams throughout the
Adirondacks and Appalachian Mountains. TIME/LTM is the only long-term
network which helps us determine whether past emission controls are
having their intended effect on the environment.
TIME/LTM was initially funded at $2.4 million in 1992, but was cut to
$1.1 million in 1995 and received only $900,000 last year. Mr.
Chairman, I believe that the dwindling budget for TIME/LTM and EPA's
attempts earlier this year to cut funding for cloud water monitoring
stations raises serious concerns about EPA's commitment to all three of
these important long-term acid rain monitoring programs.
I would like to make the point that without the data showing the
ecological impact in the field, we cannot effectively seek solutions to
curbing acid rain in the future. I believe that the EPA has clearly
been willing to halt funding for CASTNet and MADPRO over the past 5
years, and it easily justifies a funding floor for all three of these
programs.
As my colleague from New York knows, acid rain is a cancer that is
eating at the ecosystem of the Adirondack region as well as other
areas, stunting our forests and rendering many of our lakes and streams
lifeless. So I ask the distinguished Chairman to affirm his commitment
to the funding of these programs and ask his help in developing
language to ensure the continuation of these critical acid rain
monitoring programs.
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for his strong advocacy for this critical ecosystem in upstate New
York. As a Member who has worked closely with him on a number of
issues, I understand the importance of the acid rain programs not only
to the Adirondacks but to the entire Eastern Seaboard.
As the gentleman knows, the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies has consistently supported funding for acid rain monitoring
programs and would agree that a funding floor may be appropriate to
ensure they can continue to operate in the long term. I would most
certainly work with my colleague from New York to develop language that
ensures the continued funding of these important environmental
programs.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
thank the Chairman again for his commitment to fighting acid rain.
It is important to note at this time, Mr. Chairman, a recent GAO
report, which I requested, revealed that half of the lakes in the
Adirondacks have shown increases in nitrogen levels since the Clean Air
Act Amendments were signed into law in 1990. These deposits are at
levels far higher than EPA's own worst-case scenario estimates, and we
are clearly not doing enough.
I believe that the current evidence of the worsening of the acid rain
problem shows that this is a time to be strengthening the Federal
Government's commitment to acid rain programs, not retracting it; and I
once again thank the Chairman for his commitment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
emergency management planning and assistance
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to
carry out activities under the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, as amended, and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of
1977, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (15 U.S.C.
2201 et seq.), the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), sections 107 and 303 of the
National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 404-
405), and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, $267,000,000.
And in addition, $5,500,000 to be derived by transfer from
the ``Disaster relief'' account.
radiological emergency preparedness fund
The aggregate charges assessed during fiscal year 2001, as
authorized by Public Law 106-74, shall not be less than 100
percent of the amounts anticipated by the agency necessary
for its radiological emergency preparedness program for the
next fiscal year.
[[Page 11752]]
The methodology for assessment and collection of fees shall
be fair and equitable; and shall reflect costs of providing
such services, including administrative costs of collecting
such fees. Fees received pursuant to this section shall be
deposited in the Fund as offsetting collections and will
become available for authorized purposes on October 1, 2001,
and remain available until expended.
emergency food and shelter program
To carry out an emergency food and shelter program pursuant
to title III of Public Law 100-77, as amended, $110,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That total
administrative costs shall not exceed 3\1/2\ percent of the
total appropriation.
flood map modernization fund
(transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, $30,000,000 to be
derived by transfer from the ``Disaster relief'' account, and
such additional sums as may be received under 1360(g) or
provided by State or local governments or other political
subdivisions for cost-shared mapping activities under section
1360(f )(2), to remain available until expended.
national flood insurance fund
(including transfer of funds)
For activities under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as amended,
not to exceed $25,736,000 for salaries and expenses
associated with flood mitigation and flood insurance
operations, and not to exceed $77,307,000 for flood
mitigation, including up to $20,000,000 for expenses under
section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act, which
amount shall be available for transfer to the National Flood
Mitigation Fund until September 30, 2002. In fiscal year
2001, no funds in excess of: (1) $55,000,000 for operating
expenses; (2) $455,627,000 for agents' commissions and taxes;
and (3) $40,000,000 for interest on Treasury borrowings shall
be available from the National Flood Insurance Fund without
prior notice to the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 1309(a)(2) of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)), as amended by Public Law 104-
208, is further amended by striking ``2000'' and inserting
``2001''.
The first sentence of section 1376(c) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4127(c)), is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting
``September 30, 2001''.
national flood mitigation fund
(including transfer of funds)
Notwithstanding sections 1366(b)(3)(B)-(C) and 1366(f ) of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
$20,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2002, for
activities designed to reduce the risk of flood damage to
structures pursuant to such Act, of which $20,000,000 shall
be derived from the National Flood Insurance Fund.
General Services Administration
federal consumer information center fund
For necessary expenses of the Federal Consumer Information
Center, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$7,122,000, to be deposited into the Federal Consumer
Information Center Fund: Provided, That the appropriations,
revenues, and collections deposited into the Fund shall be
available for necessary expenses of Federal Consumer
Information Center activities in the aggregate amount of
$12,000,000. Appropriations, revenues, and collections
accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2001 in excess of
$12,000,000 shall remain in the Fund and shall not be
available for expenditure except as authorized in
appropriations Acts.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
human space flight
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of human space flight research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including revitalization and modification of
facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to
existing facilities, facility planning and design, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; space flight, spacecraft control and communications
activities including operations, production, and services;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $5,499,900,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2002.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Cummings
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that has been
designated No. 33.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Cummings:
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,800,000)''.
Page 73, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,800,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their support. I have offered this amendment to increase
funding for the NASA University Research Centers, better known as URCs,
at 14 minority institutions by $2.8 million.
URCs are funded through NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology
Division. The amendment is offset by deducting the same amount from the
Human Space Flight account.
{time} 1415
The URC program has expanded the Nation's base for aerospace
research, increased participation by faculty and students at
historically black colleges and universities and other minority
universities in mainstream research, and increased the production of
disadvantaged students with advanced degrees in NASA-related fields.
Furthermore, each research unit has developed a broad-based
competitive research capability in areas related to NASA's strategic
enterprises while contributing to support the Agency's scientific and
technical human resource requirements.
Under this amendment, each URC would be eligible to receive up to
$1.2 million per year, an increase of $200,000, to support activities
and operations in the subaccounts from which they are funded. I hope
the chair and the ranking member will work with me to ensure that this
is stated in any report language.
This is a great investment in our students, and I urge support of
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), and I yield
myself such time as I may consume. However, I am not in opposition.
We have considered this and we have discussed this with the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) the ranking member. We believe this
is a friendly amendment, it is a proper use of funds, and we think it
is a good allocation of funds. For that reason, I have no objection to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the chairman and have no
objection. I compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for
bringing it up.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Roemer
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Roemer:
Page 73, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,100,000,000) (increased by
$300,000,000)''.
Page 73, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $290,000,000) (increased by
$20,000,000) (increased by $6,000,000) (increased by
$49,000,000)''.
Page 77, line 1, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $405,000,000)''.
Page 77, line 22, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $62,000,000)''.
Page 78, line 5, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $34,700,000)''.
Page 78, line 21, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,900,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
[[Page 11753]]
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes
additional time to both sides evenly divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if I could
inquire of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), it is our
understanding that he has several other amendments that have time
allocated for them; and if he would withhold from offering those
amendments, and if my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) who
was a part of this agreement would agree, we could provide the
additional 10 minutes to this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, an additional 10 minutes per side to this
amendment?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) for clarification.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair would indulge, I do not know
how complicated this might be to do, if it could be done in the
Committee of the Whole or done in the whole House. But if such an
agreement could be worked out easily, I would agree to that, give the
gentleman another 10 minutes, and save us 20 minutes on the other two
amendments.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I understand it,
there would then be provided a total of 30 minutes in the aggregate, 15
minutes a side, on this amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, it would be a total of 20 minutes, with
10 minutes on each side for this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I understood it to be a total of 30
minutes, 15 minutes per side.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we discussed this very clearly. It would
be a total of 20 minutes on this amendment No. 48, 10 minutes to a side
on that; on the other two amendments the gentleman would be able to
speak for 2 minutes just to talk about the amendment and then to
withdraw them and not to exercise a point of order with regard to them.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
how about I would agree to the 10 minutes per side on this amendment
and then I have 4 minutes to discuss my two amendments in the next
title and withdraw the amendments?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that. If the
gentlemen are all in agreement, I would be happy to agree to that.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Roemer) will have 10 minutes and a Member opposed will have 10 minutes
on this amendment.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
gracious opportunity to work through this amendment, which oftentimes
is given an hour or 2 hours of debate.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $2.1 billion and thereby
eliminate the Space Station, transfer $508 million to the National
Science Foundation, and transfer another $365 million back into NASA,
thereby leaving over $1 billion for debt reduction, probably the
highest priority for the American people right now to keep this economy
going and provide low interest rates and low mortgage payments.
For NASA, Mr. Chairman, this is the best of times and the worst of
times. It is the best of times in that we are succeeding in many
endeavors: the Hubell returning great pictures from space, the
Pathfinder landing on Mars and exciting the American people with new
knowledge, and John Glenn saying our senior citizens going into space
can teach us every bit as much as a 25-year-old endeavoring into space.
But they are also the worst of times, with a Space Station eating up
$2.1 billion and being $80 billion over budget.
Now, according to this graph, Mr. Chairman, the initial cost of the
Space Station was $8 billion. It is now $100 billion and growing. The
initial missions for the Space Station, we had eight. Now we are down
to one. I do not think this is a good investment of the taxpayers'
money.
Now, Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, was just up here
testifying the other day and told Congress that the best investment we
could make as a Congress, as a people, is to invest in research and
development and science so that we stay on the cutting edge and keep
jobs in America and export products abroad.
This amendment moves $508 million into the National Science
Foundation to invest in research and development, to invest in the
American workers, to invest in the cutting edge, and to invest in
American jobs.
I would conclude so that I could have more speakers have the
opportunity to discuss this amendment by saying this: Our dream has
expanded beyond the Space Station, outside of the universe with the
Hubell pictures and Mars; and now with the Russians and MIR, their
space station is now being paid for by wealthy Americans paying $20
million to travel to MIR.
Is that the future of the American Space Station, an expensive
amusement park for the wealthy, when it can do little else?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would delete funding for the
International Space Station and reallocate the funds to various worthy
programs in other portions of the bill and designate a portion of the
savings for debt reduction.
While I may agree with the plea for additional funds in some of the
programs proposed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), I must
oppose the amendment.
Terminating the Space Station would end what could be the most
significant research and development laboratory in history and cause
upheaval in the Shuttle program for years into the future, effectively
terminating NASA's Human Space Flight program. It would also render
useless over a half million pounds of hardware, much of which is
already in space.
Mr. Chairman, there are broad and important applications for the
Space Station, not the least of which is that there will be
schoolchildren all over the world who not only will be able to watch
with great interest the progress, but they will see the cooperation
that the nations of the world have formed to launch this expression of
man's hope for the future.
The intrinsic value of the inspiration that it will provide to our
young people is incalculable. We have children in my school district in
Syracuse who will be providing an experiment that will go on the Space
Station. They will be watching it, monitoring it, using the Internet to
conduct their research, and working with colleges and scientists
throughout the world. These young people are the people we need to get
involved in space and mathematics. The Space Station will help us to do
that.
In addition, termination of the contracts for the Space Station at
this time would subject NASA to liability of about $750 million. And
the amendment makes no provision for these costs. I believe it is
important for everyone to understand where we stand today with regard
to the Space Station.
The prime contractor has completed nearly 90 percent of its
development work. U.S. flight hardware for missions through flight 12A
is at the launch site at the Kennedy Space Center awaiting either final
testing or launch for assembly.
In addition to Russia, the second largest infrastructure provider,
the other international partners remain committed to the station
program, having spent over $5 billion to date.
[[Page 11754]]
The Russian Service Module is on schedule for a summer launch. This
element will allow a permanent crew to be placed in orbit later this
year.
NASA is actively encouraging commercial participation in the station
program, having just concluded a major multimedia collaboration.
Mr. Chairman, within one year, the station will be inhabited by three
international crew members. In five years, the station will be complete
and serving as an outpost for humans to develop, use, and explore the
space frontier. We have come far, and soon the station research will be
underway. Now is not the time to stop this incredibly important
program.
I ask all Members to oppose the Roemer amendment
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a cosponsor of the bipartisan amendment.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding me the time. I will try to save a little time.
Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is a failure and it is
a misuse of taxpayer money. In 1983, Ronald Reagan first presented the
idea of the Space Station and NASA predicted the cost would be $8
billion.
Between 1985 and 1993, we spent $11.4 billion on this project and
never sent anything to orbit. So we started over and, voila, we had the
International Space Station.
In 1993, NASA told us that the station would cost $17.4 billion to
build, would be completed in the year 2002, and would be operational
for 10 years. They told us the total operational costs from
construction to decommissioning would be $72.3 billion. We were
presented with a new program that would cost twice as much and that
would last one-third as long.
And this was a good idea?
As my colleagues can see from my chart, since 1993 we have spent more
than $2 billion every year. With funding provided in this bill, we will
have spent $25.4 billion since 1995. Construction is 4 years behind
schedule and is expected to cost the U.S. around $26 billion. That is
50 percent above the original quote.
The United States is expected to pay 74 percent of construction
costs. If this Station is completed and if it becomes operational, the
United States is scheduled to pay 76 percent of operational costs. And
we call that an International Space Station?
The United States is the only country expected to make cash payments
for this Station's operating expenses. The other countries will
reimburse through in-kind contributions.
{time} 1430
Where is the international commitment? Vote for this amendment. It
restores necessary funding to the National Science Foundation; it
boosts successful NASA programs; and it reduces the national debt.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, once again we are faced with an amendment
to kill the International Space Station and once again I rise in the
strongest possible opposition to that amendment.
Last year, I said that the time for debate on this issue had passed.
It was true then, and it is certainly true today. It is even more true
today. All of these arguments that are being advanced against the
International Space Station were applicable a long time ago. We have
now a functional Space Station in Earth's orbit. We have a team of
astronauts who have just returned from a resupply, repair, and reboost
mission to that station and by the end of this summer, the launch of
the long-awaited Russian service module will allow the station to be
inhabited by humans.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana would throw all of that
away, flushing literally tens of billions of dollars down the drain,
money invested by the United States and also money invested by our
international partners, yes, by Russia, Canada, Japan, Italy, and
France to name just a few. Pulling out of the joint effort at this
stage is, in my judgment, irresponsible.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of recent votes on this issue. I
think from 1992 to date, a series of maybe eight or nine votes on this
issue. In each instance, the body has expressed its solid support and
increasing support for the International Space Station. There is simply
not much else to say in this debate. It has all been said so many times
before during those years.
But let us be honest. This amendment is not really about anything
else other than killing the Space Station, however attractive some of
the accounts are to where the money is spent. This debate has been
decided in the past. I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we can do better by our budget
and by our children by investing the Space Station money in more
worthy, reliable programs, both at NASA and in other areas of the
science budget as well as reducing our national debt.
Mr. Chairman, what could we do with $2.1 billion? We could fund the
National Institutes of Health for 16 years. We could provide low-income
heating assistance for thousands of families; or fund child
immunization programs nationwide. We could also clean up our Superfund
sites, fund drug prevention programs, provide Head Start to our
children in need, pay our debt to the United Nations, and provide a tax
cut for working families. These are investments we should be making for
our children and for their future. I strongly believe that the Space
Station is a case of misplaced priorities. With the many needs here on
Earth, the Space Station is just too expensive. We need to shore up our
Social Security system and protect Medicare and Medicaid. This
amendment must be passed.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, 9 years we have been at this. The gentleman from West
Virginia, the ranking member, referred to the number of votes that we
have had before. When we add in the authorizing committee battles that
we have had over the Space Station issue and now this battle as well,
it seems like we have voted hundreds of times on this amendment. We
need to give our support to the good NASA employees that have given
their careers to building the Space Station program. This is not the
time to pull the rug out from under this program. As we speak, the
prime contractor is 90 percent through developing the hardware. As we
speak, there are 12 International Space Station payloads already at the
Kennedy launch site. Just last month, the shuttle dropped off 2,000
pounds of supplies for the first crew.
We have got numerous experiments and other scientific projects that
will be carried aboard the Space Station project as well. It is up
there. We need to give our support to this program.
If there ever was a time to discuss this issue, it was years and
years ago. The gentleman from Indiana is wrong now. He was wrong then.
We have been at this for 9 years. Give it a rest.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) in support of my bipartisan amendment.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
As both the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske) mentioned, the original estimate on the cost for this
Space Station was $8 billion in 1984. The old Washington con game or
shell game is at work here again, drastically low-balling the original
estimate of cost and then spreading the funding around to as many
congressional districts as possible to try to get political support.
Seven years after the start of this in 1991, an extraordinary
coalition of 14 leading scientific groups came out strongly against the
Space Station because of the tremendous drain on funding from other
worthwhile scientific
[[Page 11755]]
projects. Robert L. Park, executive director of the American Physical
Society, has estimated the full cost to build and equip the station to
be $118 billion and said, ``If you include operating costs over what
NASA claims will be a 30-year life, it comes to an S&L-bailout-sized
$180 billion.''
This, Mr. Chairman, is going to go down as probably the biggest
boondoggle in the history of this Congress. I know this is probably a
losing effort, but I admire the gentleman from Indiana's courage and
perseverance; and I urge support for his amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on
Science and a strong advocate of the Space Station program.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Of course I oppose
this amendment. I have opposed it ever since the gentleman from Indiana
has been in Congress. I hope I am opposing it for the next 10 years
with him because he is a wonderful guy; he just has a lousy amendment.
He is continuing that tradition even though the first segment of the
International Space Station is already in orbit and operational and
additional elements of the station are awaiting launch from Cape
Kennedy. There are so many reasons. I will just say that we are here in
the annual argument again. It has been argued before time and time
again. It has never passed. I think if it should pass this station to
go on to the next station that we would have every hotel and every
eating establishment within 100 miles of here covered by school
children and university people and people across the country that know
that this is the future of America. We have to have a Space Station. We
need it for many reasons: medical, all types of electronic fallout,
national defense. You name it; we need it.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend from Indiana's
amendment. It is time for this Congress to finally realize that
previous Congresses have simply made a bad investment decision. But let
me preface my remarks by saying that there is no bigger cheerleader for
NASA at the space program in this Congress than myself who has the
privilege of representing the hometown area of Deke Slaton, one of the
original Mercury astronauts, and one of the current Shuttle astronauts,
Mark Lee. But what started out as an $8 billion commitment from the
American taxpayer to the international space station has now ballooned
to over $100 billion and the cost is increasing. It is time for this
Congress to at least take action to save the American taxpayer
additional billions of dollars.
I like what the Roemer amendment does by dedicating a large portion
of the savings to national debt reduction which we know is going to pay
back economic dividends to the American people as well as makes a
healthy investment in the National Science Foundation. I do not think
it is too bold to predict that over the next couple of decades, we are
probably going to see more scientific discoveries than we have seen in
the last 300 years.
This Congress has an obligation as the representatives of this
democracy to invest heavily in science so that we make these
breakthroughs first rather then a dictatorial power who might see these
scientific discoveries for nefarious purposes. That's why increased
support for the National Science Foundation is so important.
I, like many Americans, am very supportive of NASA's efforts to
explore the universe and expand our knowledge of space, but I do not
support such efforts at any price. What must be questioned is the
tremendous cost that the American taxpayers are facing today to
perpetuate a space station that many in the scientific community
believe has limited value. That is why I support canceling the
International Space Station.
The space program has exceeded all spending predictions and failed to
achieve its intended mission. In 1993, NASA said construction of the
space station would be finished in June 2002 and the entire program
would cost $72.3 billion. Recent estimates, however, place the cost at
nearly $100 billion and we are still years away from completion. In
fact, NASA had to launch a shuttle mission last month to apply boosters
to the station because it was falling from its orbit by 1.5 miles each
week.
Additional problems have occurred recently, such as those in
Huntsville, Alabama, where two parts of the space station, valued at
$750,000 were mistakenly discarded in a land fill. These tanks were
never found and had to be replaced at an additional expense.
Yet, knowing that the space station has become a budgetary black
hole, Congress continues to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars year
after year to fund such an expensive program.
How can we justify the space station when our country is being forced
to make tough decisions about how to fund Social Security for seniors,
how to ensure that our children have a quality education system, how to
shore up Medicare, and how to reduce our $5.7 trillion national debt?
We must stop this annual waste of money and better prioritize our
investment decisions.
It is essential that we continue to scrutinize the projects upon
which our Government spends taxpayer money and I commend my colleagues
who support this amendment and continue to speak out against the
Budgetary Black Hole known as the International Space Station.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
terminate this failed program and do what is right for our citizens.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing
me to oppose the Roemer amendment one more time. I sometimes think like
Yogi Berra that it is deja vu all over again. Or maybe like the movie
Ground Hog Day, every year we keep experiencing the same thing.
I join my colleague from Texas in saying that the gentleman from
Indiana is a great person with a bad amendment. Again, the
International Space Station represents the future of our space
exploration. It will be a high-tech laboratory with innovations. It
will have countless applications to the daily lives of Americans. It
represents an era of international cooperation from which everyone will
benefit.
If Congress does undermine the funding for the International Space
Station by passing this amendment, it will represent a major reversal
in the commitment made to the program's stability over the years. It
will be a betrayal to our international partners. Among the criticisms
are that the cost for the life cycle of the Space Station has
dramatically risen over the years. In fact, the cost for the life cycle
of the Space Station has gone up only 2 percent in the last 3 years.
Critics have charged that the funding for the Space Station will push
out smaller space exploration endeavors, like Mars Pathfinder and
Hubbell. That is just simply not true. We will use this platform for
those.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, in my 6 years in Congress I have
consistently voted to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging represented by the
International Space Station. Because I have done so, I often have
constituents in a surprised tone ask me how I can be against space-
based research. My answer is that I am not against space research. In
fact, I am ardently for such science. Unfortunately, the International
Space Station does not advance the scientific mission of NASA and
actually threatens the scientific payoff the United States can expect
from the agency.
Evidence today shows that few non-NASA scientists believe the project
has scientific value. And continuous cost overruns suck the air out of
worthwhile programs, making it unlikely we will be able to duplicate
the success of missions like the Pathfinder.
Mr. Chairman, the pro space science vote is the no Space Station
vote.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Roemer-Ganske-Woolsey-Duncan-Rivers-LoBiondo- Roukema-Kind-Camp-
Ramstad bipartisan amendment is strongly supported by the Taxpayers for
Common Sense, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government
Waste, the Concord Coalition,
[[Page 11756]]
and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Ten leading scientific associations,
including the American Physical Society, the Carnegie Institution, and
the American Society of Cell Biologists also support it.
I encourage bipartisan support to stop the Space Station and invest
in the National Science Foundation and debt reduction.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, terminating the International Space Station would end
what could be the most significant research and development laboratory
in history and cause a complete upheaval of the shuttle program for
years into the future, effectively terminating NASA's human space
flight program.
High-cost growth often cited as the reason to terminate the Space
Station is simply not the case. The initial congressional budget
projection for ISS from 1994 to 2000 was approximately $14.5 billion.
During those years, actual expenditures have totalled $15.8 billion,
reflecting a growth of less than 10 percent. Termination costs could
total over $750 million. And the prime contractor has completed nearly
90 percent of its development work. In addition, Russia and the other
international partners remain committed to the ISS and have spent over
$5 billion to date. Within 1 year, the ISS will be inhabited by three
international crew members. In 5 years, the Space Station will be
complete and serving as an outpost for humans to develop, use, and
explore the space frontier.
We have come so far and soon the ISS research will be under way. The
last 2 decades have seen magnificent high-tech growth in this world.
Imagine what this facility will do for the children and education in
the next 2 decades and beyond. Vote no on this misguided amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the
Roemer-Ganske-Woolsey-Duncan et al. amendment to H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD-
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.
We cannot squander this historic opportunity to invest in America's
future; if approved, this amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations
measure risks doing just that.
Despite the shortcomings of this bill, there are some commitments
that have been secured and need to be preserved. Our ability to reach
the stars is an important priority, which will ensure that America
remains the preeminent country for space exploration.
Although this measure is destined to be vetoed in its current form, I
believe the $13.7 billion appropriation, $322 million (2 percent) less
than requested by the administration, could have been even more
generous.
But the amendment offered to completely eliminate funding for the
international space station would be entirely reckless and would
abandon our commitment to the American people.
Although many of us would have clearly preferred to vote on a bill
that includes more funding for other NASA priorities, Veterans
Administration and National Science Foundation programs, such increases
should not offset the money appropriated for our international space
station.
The measure provides $2.1 billion for continued development of the
international space station, and $3.2 billion for space shuttle
operations. We need to devote additional personnel at NASA's Human
Flight Centers to ensure that the high skill and staffing levels are in
place to operate the Space Shuttle safely and to launch, as well as
assemble the International Space Station.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud the Johnson Space Center and its many
accomplishments, and I promise to remain a vocal supporter of NASA and
its creative programs. NASA has had a brilliant 40 years, and I see no
reason why it could not have another 40 successful years. It has made a
tremendous impact on the business and residential communities of the
18th Congressional District of Texas, and the rest of the nation.
The reality is that we have a historic opportunity to continue paying
down the debt while passing an appropriations measure that adequately
meets the needs of those that have been left behind in the New Economy.
In closing, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment and
the bill so that we can get back to work on a common sense measure that
invests in America's future, makes affordable housing a reality across
America, and keeps our vital NASA program strong well into the 21st
century.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The International Space Station represents a unique scientific
opportunity to perform research. Research which will lead to
innovations and breakthroughs that will improve the quality of life for
all of us. NASA has already grown crystals aboard the Shuttle that have
provided scientists with useful insights into the mechanisms of crystal
growth. Information gained on crystal growth will make it easier and
more predictable to develop specialized materials on Earth. During
relatively short duration Shuttle missions scientists have gained a
better understanding of underlying biological mechanisms that will help
us understand balance and hearing in humans. Of particular interest has
been research aboard the Shuttle which has given scientists a better
understanding of the structure of a specific strain of the flu virus
that kills 3,000 infants in the U.S. annually, providing pharmaceutical
manufacturers key information needed to develop antibodies.
Clearly, research aboard the Shuttle in the zero gravity environment
of space has led to keen insights into various scientific phenomena.
However, this is only a fraction of the scientific discoveries enabled
by the Space Station. The Shuttle can only fly a handful of times per
year and only a couple weeks at a time. On the other hand, the Space
Station enables research to be conducted 365 days a year.
Scientific discovery and technological development are the key
drivers behind our prosperity. We must not turn our backs on the
payoffs that research on the Space Station can provide to improve life
on Earth for all of us. Because our children and grandchildren will
benefit most from that research, I urge that the proposed amendment be
rejected.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by Mr. Roemer. After countless missed deadlines, technical
glitches, cost overruns, and a lack of support from our so-called
``partners,'' it's time we face facts; the International Space Station
program must end.
The original estimate for the first space station put the cost of
such an endeavor at $8 billion dollars. Congress ended up spending
$11.4 billion and what it got was a failed program that offered little
hardware, and no launch. Since this program did not work, Congress
needed a new way to waste taxpayer dollars. So in 1993 this new program
was called the International Space Station.
NASA recently estimated the cost of building this station through
completion, whenever that will be, at well over $26 billion. This
estimate does not even include the billions of dollars a year it will
take to maintain the station after that. What's more, our so-called
``partners,'' Japan, Canada, and 10 other countries, are only required
to collectively spend $9 billion. It seems the partners of the
International Space Station actually share little more than a name.
Once again the United States is left holding the bag.
On March 16, 2000, Mr. Allen Li, Associate Director, National
Security and International Affairs Division of the Government
Accounting Office gave testimony before the House Science Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics saying Russia is still not complying with the
space station's safety requirements. His testimony states the Russian
Control and Service Modules have not met NASA guidelines to protect the
station from orbiting debris, yet NASA said this risk was
``acceptable.'' NASA is still reviewing other safety concerns including
excessive noise levels and outright operational failure. Where billions
of dollars are concerned and, more importantly, human life, is any risk
acceptable? My greatest fear is that NASA is ignoring quality standards
in a futile attempt to justify this albatross.
It is for these reasons I fully support Mr. Roemer's amendment to the
Veterans Administration-Housing and Urban Development Appropriations
bill for FY 2001. This amendment transfers the $2.115 billion
appropriated to the International Space Station and places it in the
National Science Foundation and in other valuable NASA programs.
Additional money will go towards paying down the national debt.
Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. Congress has already dumped too much
into this space station, to no benefit. I believe we should give
America's taxpayers a break by canceling the International Space
Station.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer
amendment to H.R. 4635, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations for
FY 2001 to terminate the International Space Station. As Co-Chair of
the Congressional Aerospace Caucus, I strongly support continued
funding for the International
[[Page 11757]]
Space Station (ISS). The Space Station is critical for NASA to maintain
America's leadership in space exploration, research and technology. In
addition, this international endeavor fosters peaceful relationships
among 16 countries by collaborating on mutual goals for the benefit of
humankind.
The practical benefits to space exploration are countless. It is
proven that for each tax dollar we spend in space, we receive a $9
return here on Earth in new products, new technologies and improvements
for people around the world. Research in the Space Station's unique
orbital laboratory will lead to discoveries in medicine, materials and
fundamental science. Space station research will build on proven
medical research conducted on the Space Shuttle to benefit diseases
such as cancer, osteoporosis and AIDS. Medical equipment technology
developed for early astronauts are still paying off today. For example:
NASA developed a ``cool suit'' for the Apollo missions,which is now
helping to improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients.
NASA technology has produced a pacemaker that can be programmed from
outside the body.
NASA developed instruments to measure bone loss and bone density
without penetrating the skin which are now being used by hospitals.
NASA research has led to an implant for delivering insulin to
diabetics that is only 3 inches across which provides more precise
control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the daily burden
of insulin.
Second,the ISS enhances US economic competitiveness by providing an
opportunity for the private sector to use the technologies and research
applications of space. This will increase the number of high-tech jobs
and economic opportunities available today and for future generations.
Third, the Space Station serves as a virtual classroom for students
of all levels and ages. Innovative programs have been designed that
will allow students to actively participate in research on board the
Station. Our commitment to long-term research and development will
encourage today's youth to consider careers in science and technology,
fields where American workers are desperately needed.
With nearly 90 percent of the International Space Station development
completed, we are only months away from having a permanent human
presence in low orbit and beginning the research that holds so much
promise for the global community. Ending progress on the ISS now would
require NASA to scrap billions of dollars of hardware that has been
designed and developed for the ISS. Furthermore, we would be throwing
away years of international cooperation and ending the peacetime
collaboration in history.
I urge my colleagues to ensure that the United States remains at the
forefront of space research. Vote NO on the Roemer amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
{time} 1545
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Hulshof) to enter into a colloquy.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for yielding to me. As my good friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh) the chairman of the Subcommittee VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies knows, in a 6-hour time frame between May the 6 of
this year and Sunday morning, May the 7, 15 inches of rain fell in
parts of my district. As a result of some severe flash flooding, two
lives were lost, over 200 of my constituents were left homeless and
numerous businesses have suffered property damage.
Recognizing the severity of these damages caused by the flooding, the
President on May the 12 of this year designated three Missouri
counties, Franklin County, Gasconade and Jefferson County as Federal
disaster areas.
Believing that a precedent had been set by Congress in their dealings
with past disasters, the Mayor of the City of Washington, Missouri
submitted to me a request for an appropriation that would permit their
city to implement a flood buyout and relocation program.
Though a specific line item was not used to secure relief for the
victims of past floods, it is my understanding that a precedent was set
by allowing money through the Housing and Urban Development's Community
Development and Block Grants program to pay for buyouts, to pay for
relocation and mitigation in communities in North Dakota, South Dakota,
and Minnesota.
While I certainly, Mr. Chairman, would prefer that more money be made
available in the Community Development Block Grant program for the
State of Missouri to pay for the buyout and relocation of businesses
impacted by this flash flood, I do recognize the budgetary hardships
that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has encountered in
crafting this fiscal year 2001 bill.
Mr. Chairman, I had considered offering an amendment to waive the
Community Development Block Grant low- and moderate-income requirements
for those areas affected by the major disaster that was the subject of
this May 6 and 7 flood. However, I also recognize that the provisions
of such a proposal would constitute legislating on an appropriations
bill and would have been ruled out of order.
Mr. Chairman, recognizing that at this point there is little that
this body can do, I would ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
should an opportunity present itself to help those families and
businesses that were severely impacted for him to look for that and
grasp that opportunity on behalf of those families and businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh)
for his willingness to work with me to address this very critical and
serious situation.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Hulshof) for his hard work on behalf of his constituents who have been
so severely impacted by these flash floods. The gentleman has been
absolutely diligent about bringing this to the attention of the
subcommittee, to protect his constituents and rightly so. Congress is
working within an extremely tight budget again this year, and the
subcommittee thanks the gentleman for his cooperation working within
these restrictions.
Accordingly, I intend to work in conference to find a reasonable
solution to this problem.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) yield to me for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy on another
subject?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4635 includes bill language that
would prevent EPA from finalizing or implementing changes to the
Agency's TMDL program that are based on the August 23, 1999 proposed
rule during fiscal year 2001. This limitation is consistent with my own
position that, due to the overwhelming opposition from groups as
diverse as the United States Conference of Mayors, Friends of the
Earth, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, the Clean
Water Industry Coalition, the National Federation of Independent
Business, the American Foreign Bureau Federation and the American
Forest and Paper Association, EPA should withdraw its August 23, 1999
TMDL proposals and go back to the drawing board.
However, I also want to make sure that H.R. 4635 also is consistent
with my position that State work on TMDLs continues as expeditiously as
possible, in accordance with EPA's existing regulations, while work on
a new proposal is underway.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert)
can be assured that the committee intends States to move forward as
expeditiously as possible, with the development and implementation of
TMDLs
[[Page 11758]]
under current regulatory authorities. This is one of the primary
purposes of the $130 million increase in funding for State Clean Water
programs under section 106 of the Clean Water Act.
The committee expects States to use these resources in part to fill
the data gaps identified by GAO in their March 2000 report on data
quality and to develop and implement TMDLs that are scientifically and
legally defensible.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, in addition, I would like to seek
clarification of the committee's intent if EPA ignores my request and
the requests of other Members of Congress, our Nation's mayors, major
environmental groups, agricultural groups, forestry groups and industry
groups and finalizes this rule within an effective date that occurs
prior to the enactment of H.R. 4635.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Walsh was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, some have
suggested that if EPA's new TMDL rules go into effect, existing
regulations will be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations and
the language of H.R. 4635 will not reinstate those existing
regulations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his advocacy. If EPA
refuses to withdraw the TMDL rules and issues final rules with an
effective date that will occur before enactment of this legislation, I
will work with the Senate in conference to ensure that the TMDL
regulation in effect today remain in place.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his
leadership, and it is pleasure to work in partnership with him.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
science, aeronautics and technology
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and technology
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including revitalization, and
modification of facilities, construction of new facilities
and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and
design, and acquisition or condemnation of real property, as
authorized by law; space flight, spacecraft control and
communications activities including operations, production,
and services; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and
operation of mission and administrative aircraft,
$5,606,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.
Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Mollohan
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 39 offered by Mr. Mollohan:
Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $322,700,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, January
20, 2000, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me express appreciation to my dear friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for his assistance
in working on this amendment and working on NASA issues generally. The
gentleman is a real champion for NASA funding and he has a passionate
concern for the underfunding of some of the accounts that we are trying
to address here today. I just want to give a special note of
appreciation to him for his assistance.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would accomplish a simple goal: to
bring NASA's long-reduced budget up to the President's requests. After
years of repeated cuts the administration has proposed a modest
increase for NASA, only 3.2 percent, but it is a modest increase and
barely takes care of inflation. Indeed, the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Walsh) has done his best to fund NASA in this bill, and we
express appreciation for him for those efforts.
Let me briefly explain why I think there are some accounts that
deserve funding. The so-called Living With a Star Initiative that would
help us understand the Sun's behavior, extremely important, Mr.
Chairman, when to expect sun flares, when to expect these abnormalities
affect us here on Earth. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $16.5
million to that end.
Secondly, the bill before us completely eliminates funding for the
space launch initiative, extremely important, including funding for
advanced technology research on the next generation Space Shuttle, as
well as ongoing work on two experimental vehicles, the X34 and the X37.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would provide $260 million for this
purpose, which represents $30 million less than the President's
requests, but it at least gets significant amounts of money on those
very important projects.
Thirdly, my amendment would provide $39.1 million to the aviation
system capacity program for a total of $49.2 million. This important
ongoing program of research and development has the goal of improving
air traffic control and reducing airport and aerospace congestion.
Finally, my amendment provides $7 million for the small aircraft
transportation system, to develop technology for use in improving
utilization and safety of general aviation airports and aircraft, which
have the highest accident rate of all modes of transportation, Mr.
Chairman. This is an area that we desperately need to put these
additional funds.
Let me restate that by offering this amendment, I am in no way
intending to criticize my chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for his hard work in crafting this bill. We simply did not have
enough money to go around and hopefully we will as we move forward.
We have, however, I think, with this amendment, put important
resources back into NASA's programs that were underfunded so that it
can carry out these important responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York continues to reserve his
point of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). As we all know, there is no offset
for this, but we are certainly sensitive to the desire of the gentleman
to provide these funds where they are needed. Unfortunately, we do not
have the additional funds to provide under our allocation. If, perhaps,
later in the process, additional funds come available, we would be
happy to work with the gentleman to resolve this. At this time, I must
continue to hold a point of order against him.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for yielding me the time, and I want to say that I have enjoyed
working with the gentleman for years on NASA's issues.
I represent the Marshal Space Flight Center back there in Alabama.
When I came to the Congress in 1991, the gentleman was among the first
people that we began working with to plan for a future for NASA that
was beyond the space station. Also in coming to this subcommittee, I
want to pay tribute to
[[Page 11759]]
the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) during my now two terms on the subcommittee, the gentleman has
struggled vainly and against a lot of odds with allocations that made
it very, very difficult for us to have the kind of NASA budget that
some felt like we needed to have.
However, at the end of the process, we made sure that NASA did
receive the support of the committee, and I thank the gentleman from
New York for that and for enduring with those of us that want to make
sure that the particular line item programs are heard and have a voice
there.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak more specifically to the Space Launch
Initiative, because the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is attempting through this amendment to restore
funding that would help a number of NASA's programs, and he has spoken
about those programs. But the Space Launch Initiative is a very
important initiative that really defines NASA's future.
It is designed to enable the aerospace industry and NASA to come
together to look at a new version of space transportation. The Space
Launch Initiative envisions NASA eventually purchasing launches from
commercial launch vendors allowing NASA to then concentrate its
resources on the science missions and space exploration as well. In
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I know the ranking member, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) is here, and he will spend time
discussing over this particular amendment the initiatives that the
Committee on Science has undertaken here.
We have given a mandate to NASA to come up with alternative means of
transportation, working with the aerospace industry to make sure that
they come up with these alternate means of transportation. Unless we
restore this funding to NASA's budget, they will not be able to do
that.
I hope that the committee will hear this amendment, and especially as
the process winds its way through, as we continue the rest of the
summer, that we will be able to restore this important funding to NASA
to make sure that the Space Launch Initiative is indeed a reality.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserve
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the subcommittee for
yielding me the time, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.
I want to say at the outset that I believe that the chairman of this
subcommittee is not necessarily in theory opposed to the dollars being
added back and, therefore, I think in terms of substance, we can all
support this amendment.
The ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan)
will argue that we are constrained by funding priorities, but I believe
that this is a priority. I believe that is why the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has offered it. If we think NASA's work is
confined to scientific esoterica that only a handful of Ph.D.s can
understand, we need to think again. Research and development conducted
by NASA for our space program has led to widespread social benefits,
everything from improvements in commercial airline safety to
understanding global climate change.
{time} 1500
NASA's research also has benefited medical science. For example, its
research on the cardiovascular systems is leading to breakthrough
discoveries, testing procedures and treatments for heart disease. A few
of today's space-derived improvements include blood pressure monitors,
self-adjusting pacemakers and ultrasound images. You would not think of
that at first blush. The amendment before us would restore $322.7
million in funding for NASA's space and aeronautical programs, funding
that was cut in committee from the President's number.
The amendment before us brings our national priorities back into
focus, which is, in my opinion, what we ought to do. It would restore
$260 million to NASA's space launch initiative, which is critical for
our future space needs. In addition, this amendment would restore $16.6
million in funding for NASA's Living with a Star initiative, a project
that will be run at Goddard Space Flight Center.
Mr. Speaker, the tapestry of our national history is woven together
by exploration and discovery, from the first settlers in Jamestown to
the expeditions of Lewis and Clark, to Neil Armstrong's first step on
the Moon 31 years ago. Today, let us reaffirm our national commitment
to the latest frontier, science and technology.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me state my strong support for this amendment on
NASA funding. It's not about pork-barrel spending and pet projects.
It's about our Nation's peace and prosperity, and our quality of life.
If you think that NASA's work is confined to scientific esoterica
that only a handful of PhDs can understand, think again.
Research and development conducted by NASA for our space program has
led to widespread social benefits--everything from improvements in
commercial airline safety to understanding global climate change.
NASA's research also has benefitted medical science. For example, its
research on the cardiovascular system is leading to breakthrough
discoveries, testing procedures and treatments for heart disease. A few
of today's space-derived improvements include blood pressure monitors,
self-adjusting pacemakers and ultrasound images.
The amendment before us would restore $322.7 million in funding to
NASA's space and aeronautical programs--funding that was cut in
committee. That's certainly a lot of money. However, before I describe
the NASA programs that would be forced into a stare down with the
budget ax, and why funding for these programs ought to be restored, let
me ask this question: Are our national priorities so out of whack that
we're willing to sacrifice our commitment to science and technology on
the altar of enormous and irresponsible tax cuts? Despite the
pioneering spirit that courses through our national character, the
majority party apparently thinks so.
Last year, they pushed their huge tax cut scheme through Congress,
even though it could have put at risk the healthiest economy in our
lifetimes. This year, they're back with equally irresponsible tax
schemes.
That's what this cut to NASA funding is all about--funding tax cuts
that would benefit the wealthiest among us.
The Republican Party--with its $175 billion in tax cuts over five
years, which, according to some estimates, would rise to nearly $1
trillion over 10 years--has to make its budget numbers add up somehow.
Today, NASA's neck is stretched out on the chopping block. Yesterday,
it was our school modernization and class-size reduction efforts. And
tomorrow, it will be our initiative to put more police officers on our
streets.
All of these vital programs--and our effort to add a prescription
drug benefit to Medicare--face the budget ax because the Republican
Party would rather pass tax-cut schemes than invest in our Nation's
future.
The amendment before us brings our national priorities back into
focus. It would restore $260 million to NASA's space launch initiative,
which is critical for our future in space. Safe, low-cost space
transportation is the key to expanded commercial development and civil
exploration of space. This NASA program would enable new opportunities
in space exploration and enhance international competitiveness of the
U.S. commercial launch industry. It's no wonder that NASA believes this
program could impact space exploration and commerce as deeply as the
Apollo program.
This amendment also would restore $16.6 million in funding for NASA's
Living With a Star initiative--a project that will be run at Goddard
Space Flight Center in my district. The Living With a Star initiative
will enhance our understanding of the Sun and its impact on Earth and
the environment. It will enable scientists to predict solar weather
more accurately, and understand how solar variations affect civilian
and military space systems, human space flight, electric power grids,
high-frequency radio communications, and long-range radar.
In addition, this amendment would restore $46.1 million in funding
for two programs that are developing solutions to expensive delays in
commercial airline traffic. NASA uses its
[[Page 11760]]
unique research capabilities to diagnose problems with current air
traffic systems and develop technology solutions.
Mr. Chairman, the tapestry of our national history is woven together
by exploration and discovery--from the first settlers in Jamestown to
the expeditions of Lewis and Clark to Neil Armstrong's first step on
the Moon 31 years ago. We have never turned our backs on challenge. We
have never been content with the status quo. We have always dared to
peer over the next horizon.
Today' let's reaffirm our national commitment to the latest frontier,
science and technology. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York reserve his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. I continue to reserve, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on Science.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to support this
amendment. It is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for bringing it forth. I also want to suggest
that the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), in his very level and fair-handed handling of this, has agreed
to look at this with the gentleman and see if something cannot be
worked out. That allows me to give back maybe some of the 3 minutes the
gentleman has given me. The gentleman has covered almost everything.
The figures have been covered.
Members know I am a strong supporter of the national space program. I
will not spend time today recounting all the benefits that have come
out of the program over the years. I think everybody is aware of them.
But I am disappointed in the way this appropriations bill treats
NASA. NASA is not a Republican thrust nor a Democratic thrust. It is
really an American thrust, and it has always been handled that way.
When it came time, when the information came from the executive to
cut back on programs, NASA was cut back more than any. NASA complied.
Administrator Goldin agreed and cut it back because he knew he could
cut it decisively with an intelligent knife; and if we cut it,
sometimes we cut it with a baseball bat, not knowing really what we are
doing. He cut it back about 35 percent over a period of 2\1/2\ years. I
think we have kept the faith and we ought not to be cutting back on
this NASA program again.
I urge that the Mollohan amendment be supported. The gentleman
touched on Living With the Star, and that has already been addressed,
the space launch initiative and our skills in that field, and the space
launch initiative, which transforms telecommunications, weather
prediction, defense intelligence work, just to list some of the areas.
It would be a mistake I think to lose our leadership in space
transportation by failing to make these important investments.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of our
ranking member's amendment. As the House considers this important
amendment, I wanted to bring to Members' attention just one of the
success stories of our space program.
For the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to meet with and get
to know an outstanding scientist and an astronaut in Houston, Texas.
Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz has accompanied me to six of my middle schools
in my district to talk about the need for students to take more math
and science classes. I have also had the opportunity to visit Dr.
Chang-Diaz in his plasma jet propulsion laboratory at Lyndon B. Johnson
Space Center in Houston.
Dr. Chang-Diaz is obviously a man of many talents. He is a veteran
astronaut with six space flights and has logged over 1,269 hours; but
even more so, he is a scientist and he is developing the new, and
forgive me if I mispronounce it, the Variable Specific Impulse
Magnetoplasma Rocket concept called VASIMR. The VASIMR prototype rocket
engine is designed to shorten the trip to Mars, or anywhere else, and
provide a safer environment for the crew.
Dr. Chang-Diaz has been working with the scientists throughout NASA
and the Department of Energy to develop this process today, and he has
been able to secure funds to keep the project going. However, this
project is just too important just to allow it to survive. While I do
not make a specific request, Mr. Speaker, I hope in the future for
assistance to fund the development of the VASIMR prototype rocket
engine, and the ranking member's amendment will go far in that
direction.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York continue to reserve
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), my final speaker.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by
the gentleman from West Virginia to restore funds to aeronautics
research programs. This amendment is particularly important, given the
actions we took last night to cut an additional $30 million from these
programs on top of the cuts contained in the bill.
Our national investment in aeronautics is moving dangerously in the
wrong direction. We have already experienced a 30 percent cut in NASA
aeronautics funding over the last 2 years, and then we made cuts in the
bill and another cut last night.
The National Research Council report in 1999 warned us that past cuts
have already wreaked havoc and may threaten U.S. preeminence in our
aerospace industry. Their leading panel of scientists warned us that
continued reductions in aeronautics research and technology would
jeopardize the ability of the United States to produce preeminent
military aircraft and the ability of the aeronautics sector of the
United States economy to remain globally competitive.
Mr. Chairman, if these cuts are to be enacted, our aviation system is
set on a disastrous course. The cuts we are making will put the safety
and reliability of our air transport system at risk in the near future.
Mr. Chairman, aeronautics research has yielded significant
technological breakthroughs that we have seen recently; aircraft safety
and efficiency, which includes wing design, noise abatement, structural
integrity and fuel efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, every aircraft worldwide uses NASA technology, and it
is important to remember that these technological developments take 5,
10, 20 years before they ever come to fruition. We know that domestic
air traffic will triple in the next 20 years, and that is why we need
to make these investments today.
Mr. Chairman, these cuts are not just shortsighted, they are
dangerous. I support the Mollohan amendment, because it will ensure the
future safety and efficiency of our air transportation system.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan Amendment to
increase funding for important housing programs. A shortage of
affordable housing plagues America's cities and rural communities.
Nonetheless, this bill fails to fund America's tremendous housing
needs. Even worse, this bill cuts several billion dollars from last
year's budget for many important affordable housing programs.
The majority's bill denies housing assistance to low-income Americans
living in federally subsidized affordable housing. On average,
residents of Section 8 housing and public housing and public housing
earn only $7,800. This bill denies housing assistance for senior
citizens on fixed incomes. It forces working men and women to choose
between housing, health care, food, and other basic needs.
Compared to President Clinton's requested budget, HUD estimates it
reduces housing assistance for San Francisco by $10.9 million and
denies affordable Section 8 housing vouchers to 458 San Francisco
families. It denies housing help to 234 San Francisco residents who are
homeless or are living with HIV/AIDS.
[[Page 11761]]
Representative Mollohan's amendment would invest additional funding
to provide assistance across the country. At the Appropriations
Committee, the Republicans rejected Mollohan's amendment. This
amendment would have increased investments to build new affordable
housing; provide new affordable housing vouchers; provide housing to
the homeless; operate, build and modernize public housing; promote
community economic development; provide housing and services to
seniors, individuals with disabilities, and individuals with HIV/AIDS.
Americans need this assistance and this bill falls short.
I urge my colleagues to support Representative Mollohan's amendment
and increase housing assistance to low-income Americans.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment to increase funding for NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and
Technology account to the level of the President's request.
When adequate funding for NASA was threatened in last year's VA-HUD
appropriations bill, I received hundreds of letters and calls from my
constituents in the 2nd Congressional district in Colorado expressing
their concerns about the proposed budget cuts to federal science and
NASA programs. Many of these calls and letters were from students,
researchers, and employees who would have seen their work directly
affected by cuts in NASA's budget. But many of the letters I received
were from citizens with no direct involvement in NASA's programs. To
me, their voices were especially significant because they point to a
common understanding of the importance of continuing our investment in
science, technology, research, and learning.
This past February, I hosted a ``space weekend'' for constituents in
my district. I told them at that time that I was encouraged by the
President's proposed budget number for fiscal 2001 in the areas of
research and development programs in general, and in NASA funding in
particular. I told them I was hopeful that Congress would make the wise
decision to make these needed investments--investments that will allow
us to build on the foundation we've already laid.
Unfortunately, those hopes have not been fulfilled. Today, the bill
before us leaves NASA programs $322 million below the budget request.
It eliminates almost all of the funding for the Small Aircraft
Transportation System and the Aviation Capacity programs, both of which
are intended to make use of NASA's technological capabilities to reduce
air traffic congestion. It eliminates all of the funding for NASA's
Space Launch Initiative, a program to help maintain American leadership
in space transportation. And it eliminates all the money for NASA's
effort to better forecast ``solar storms'' that, if undetected, can
damage the nation's communications and national security satellites.
This ``Living with a Star'' program is especially important to the
University of Colorado at Boulder and federal laboratories in my
district.
Investing in NASA is a wise decision. The advancement of science and
space should concern us all. We only have to look at some examples of
the successful transfer and commercialization of NASA-sponsored
research and technology to see why. From advances in breast tumor
imaging and fetal heart monitoring to innovative ice removal systems
for aircraft, NASA technology continues to benefit U.S. enterprises,
economic growth and competitiveness, and quality of life.
NASA's Science, Aeronautics, and Technology programs comprise the
bulk of NASA's research and development activities. Two of these
programs that are of great importance to my district are NASA's Offices
of Space Science and Earth Science, which focus on increasing human
understanding of space and the planet through the use of satellites,
space probes, and robotic spacecraft to gather and transmit data.
There are still so many unanswered questions about the origins of the
universe, the stars and the planets, as well as about how we can use
the vantage point of space to develop models to help us predict natural
disasters, weather, and climate. But NASA can't answer these questions
if we don't provide it with adequate resources. This bill does not make
these much needed investments in our future, which is one reason I
cannot support it.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
Mr. WALSH. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed
a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000,
House Report 106-683. This amendment would provide new budget authority
in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under section 302(b)
and is not permitted under section 302(f) of this act.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of
the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act,
that an amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary
budget authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of
such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan) would increase the level of new discretionary budget
authority in the bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f)
of the Budget Act.
The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in
order.
The Clerk will read.
The clerk read as follows:
mission support
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in
carrying out mission support for human space flight programs
and science, aeronautical, and technology programs, including
research operations and support; maintenance; construction of
facilities including revitalization and modification of
facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to
existing facilities, facility planning and design,
environmental compliance and restoration, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
travel expenses; purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and
operation of mission and administrative aircraft; not to
exceed $40,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; and purchase (not to exceed 33 for replacement
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $2,584,000,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2002.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $23,000,000.
administrative provisions
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, when any activity has been initiated by
the incurrence of obligations for construction of facilities
as authorized by law, such amount available for such activity
shall remain available until expended. This provision does
not apply to the amounts appropriated in ``Mission support''
pursuant to the authorization for minor revitalization and
construction of facilities, and facility planning and design.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Human space flight'', ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'', or ``Mission support'' by this
appropriations Act, the amounts appropriated for construction
of facilities shall remain available until September 30,
2003.
Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds
appropriated for ``Mission support'' and ``Office of
Inspector General'', amounts made available by this Act for
personnel and related costs and travel expenses of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall remain
available until September 30, 2001 and may be used to enter
into contracts for training, investigations, costs associated
with personnel relocation, and for other services, to be
provided during the next fiscal year. Funds for announced
prizes otherwise authorized shall remain available, without
fiscal year limitation, until the prize is claimed or the
offer is withdrawn.
National Credit Union Administration
central liquidity facility
(including transfer of funds)
During fiscal year 2001, gross obligations of the Central
Liquidity Facility for the principal amount of new direct
loans to member credit unions, as authorized by title III of
the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1795 et seq.), shall
not exceed $3,000,000,000: Provided, That administrative
expenses of the Central Liquidity Facility shall not exceed
$296,303: Provided further, That $1,000,000 shall be
transferred to the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund,
of which $650,000, together with amounts of principal and
interes on loans repaid, shall be available until expended
for loans to community development credit unions, and
$350,000 shall be available until expended for technical
assistance to low-income and community development credit
unions.
National Science Foundation
research and related activities
For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950, as
[[Page 11762]]
amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and the Act to establish a
National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 1880-1881); services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; authorized travel; acquisition,
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; $3,135,690,000, of which not
to exceed $264,500,000 shall remain available until expended
for Polar research and operations support, and for
reimbursement to other Federal agencies for operational and
science support and logistical and other related activities
for the United States Antarctic Program; the balance to
remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That
receipts for scientific support services and materials
furnished by the National Research Centers and other National
Science Foundation supported research facilities may be
credited to this appropriation: Provided further, That to the
extent that the amount appropriated is less than the total
amount authorized to be appropriated for included program
activities, all amounts, including floors and ceilings,
specified in the authorizing Act for those program activities
or their subactivities shall be reduced proportionally.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
Page 77, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $404,990,000)''.
Page 77, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $20,910,000)''.
Page 77, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $61,940,000)''.
Page 78, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $34,700,000)''.
Page 78, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $5,890,000)''.
Page 79, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $580,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment and to reserve the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order
against the amendment.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with this bill, but I
think one of the greatest is the lack of adequate funding for the
National Science Foundation. This is an area that I think we should
work in a bipartisan way to correct.
Let me be clear: the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the
ranking member and the members of the subcommittee have worked hard to
meet the pressing needs with the limited funds that they have been
given. They are not at fault here. But because of inadequate
appropriations allocation, the National Science Foundation does not
receive the funds it needs to continue its vital work.
Now, in order to maintain our superb economic growth in this country,
we need at least two things: a smart, well trained workforce and new
ideas. The National Science Foundation plays a crucial role in both
areas, in education, both elementary and secondary, as well as higher
education, public education and museums and radio and television, and
research in all areas.
The NSF supports nearly 50 percent of nonmedical research conducted
at academic institutions, and provides the fundamental underpinning for
much of the medical research and other research we value in our
society.
The VA-HUD appropriations bill we are being asked to support comes up
short in the needed investments for the National Science Foundation. It
cuts NSF investments in science and engineering by over $500 million,
or 13 percent below the level requested by the President. So as funded,
the bill would weaken U.S. leadership in science and engineering and
deny progress that would result in improvement of the quality of life
of all Americans.
This is not just a case of the congressional leadership ignoring the
President's request for the National Science Foundation. No. The
leadership is ignoring its own plan for NSF funding. Just two months
ago, Congress passed a budget blueprint for FY 2001 that called for
significant increases in the National Science Foundation funding. As a
member of the Committee on the Budget, I worked to increase that
funding. In committee I helped pass an amendment to include an
additional $100 million for the National Science Foundation and other
government research. Later, as the budget came to the floor, along with
advocates on both sides of the aisle, we succeeded in raising that
allocation almost to the amount requested by the President.
I do not think any of us suspected that a short 60 days later we
would be presented with such a disappointing appropriation. At that
time, with great fanfare, the majority presented these budget
increases, this increase in money for the National Science Foundation.
Can they not meet their own level?
This is not, and should not be, a partisan issue. Increasing NSF
funding would substantially help colleges and universities across the
country and would help all Americans benefit in making prudent
investments in our future. If we are going to continue to lead the
global economy, we must have a well-trained workforce and the best
research and scientific explorations in our colleges and universities
and research institutions that we can provide.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full
funding for the National Science Foundation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15
minutes.
{time} 1515
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure the gentleman that
offered this amendment that the subcommittee did not ignore the
President's request. We honored the President's request, and I think
the desires of the Congress to the best of our ability, given our
allocation. The President requested a $675 million increase in NSF. He
also requested a 20 percent increase in HUD and substantial increases
elsewhere in the budget. There was no way, given the available
resources that we had, to meet that request.
However, what we did do was we increased funding for NASA, increased
funding for HUD, increased funding for the Veterans Administration, and
we increased funding for the National Science Foundation. In fact, we
increased NSF by almost $170 million. That is a substantial increase.
The budget is now over $4 billion. We believe strongly in investing in
science and technology. I think that our conference has been clear and
our record strong on supporting investments in science. However, we do
not have unlimited resources. We are constrained by the allocation.
I would add that if funds are made available at the end of this
process as we go into the conference that we will look, and I know the
gentleman from West Virginia feels the same way, we will look strongly
at providing those resources for further investments in technology. At
this time, we do not have those funds available to us, and for that
reason, I would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we are here today because the committee has
underfunded the President's budget request for the National Science
Foundation by $500 million. Last year, Chairman Greenspan of the
Federal Reserve said this: ``Something special has happened to the
American economy in recent years. I have hypothesized on a
[[Page 11763]]
number of occasions that the synergies that have developed, especially
among the microprocessor, the laser, fiber optics and satellite
technologies have dramatically raised the potential rates of return on
all types of equipment.''
What has happened to the American economy, in my view, has a lot to
do with the work of this committee and the work of this subcommittee.
If we take a look at the technologies that Chairman Greenspan was
talking about, this committee has been largely responsible for funding
a number of them through the years, and the results show.
If we take a look at the Internet, for instance, in 1985, the
National Science Foundation built the first national backbone, the very
infrastructure that makes the Internet work today. In 1993, the NSF
provided the funding for the development of the first Web browser. The
Internet economy will be worth $1 trillion by next year. It employs
more than 1 million workers, and it is the engine of our economic
growth.
Biotechnology. In one of its first grants in 1951, NSF gave $5,000
that helped to establish the very basis of genetic research. Since that
pivotal discovery, the field has exploded. Sixty-five biotechnology
drugs have been approved by the FDA since that time.
DNA fingerprinting. In 1995, using a key NSF discovery which made
that technique possible, the Centers for Disease Control was able to
stop an outbreak of E. Coli illness because of what they had learned
over the previous 10 years.
MRI machines. That technology is amazing. It has revolutionized
medicine, and that too has grown out of NSF funding.
So has the satellite technology that Dr. Greenspan was talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in January of 1992, the
Wilshire 500 index, which measures the value of all of the publicly
owned companies in this country, stood at 4,337, which means that all
of the stocks in those companies was worth about $4.3 trillion. Today,
it is over $13 trillion. Just one company, Oracle, the growth in that
company alone in the last 12 months has been larger than the total
valuation of the Big 3 automakers, Ford, General Motors and
DaimlerChrysler. That has been due in significant part to what we have
learned through the research funded by NSF.
Mr. Chairman, if we want the economy to grow, if we want to expand
our knowledge of the problems that face us on the health front, we have
to fund NSF to do the basic science that is required. When they do
that, they can, in turn, pass it through to the National Institutes of
Health who take it a step further, and we can finally come up with
discoveries on how to deal with some of the most dreaded diseases in
this society.
So all it helps to do is to make the economy the engine that it is
today. All it helps to do is to help human beings struggle with
illnesses that we have fought against for generations. It is well worth
the investment. It is extremely shortsighted for this agency to be
short cut just so that the majority party can provide $90 billion in
tax cuts to people who make over $300,000 a year. That is a wrong
priority; this is the right one. I congratulate the gentleman for
offering the amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there are many Federal agencies that compete for the
VA-HUD budget allocation: the Veterans Administration, housing and
urban development, Environmental Protection Agency, and other
independent agencies such as the National Science Foundation. All of us
here, Republican or Democrat, support the National Science Foundation
because we know that much of their work, the greatest portion of their
work, in fact, goes into university-based research. That support is
bipartisan and nonpartisan, in fact.
Further, this bill under discussion clearly reinforces the commitment
of this Congress to scientific research as we are aware of the National
Science Foundation marks its 50th anniversary this year. It is funded
at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or 4.3
percent over last year. We wish it could be more.
It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4
billion level. With only a small portion of Federal spending, this
agency has been, has had a powerful impact on national science and
engineering in most every State and institution of higher learning.
Every dollar invested in the National Science Foundation returns
manyfold its worth in economic growth.
I note that 5 years ago, the National Science Foundation budget was
$3.27 billion in the fiscal year 1997, and 3 years ago, the National
Science Foundation budget had climbed to $3.6 billion in 1999.
This year's increased National Science Foundation appropriation for
the fiscal year 2000 continues us in the right direction. The
remarkable discoveries mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin will
continue with this allocation, and with more money, we can find it as
this bill goes to conference.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall), the ranking member of the House Committee on Science.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in strong support
of this amendment. The National Science Foundation is one of the few
agencies in the government that is investing in the Nation's future.
While we are enjoying the very greatest prosperity and the finest
economic conditions since I have been in Congress, 20 years, and two
generations, I think this is a time when we ought to be increasing our
investment and not decreasing it. If not now, when are we going to do
it? We have not been able to with the deficits back for the last 15 to
18 years.
NSF is shorted by $500 million from the President's request, and this
amendment would fix this problem. If we adopt it, we would fully fund
advanced information technology research that is endorsed today by
leading American computer firms who tell us that we need it and we
ought to do it. And these are important programs that will keep the
U.S. at the forefront of new computer communications technologies.
This is the same research this body unanimously supported in the
February authorization. We supported it then, we ought to support it
now.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the other side
will try and do as far as smoke and mirrors is they will talk about the
President's request. Republicans brought forward the President's
budget, even his tax increase. The President made false assumptions. He
increased taxes, he took Social Security money to balance his budget,
and he used false assumptions such as the gas prices would stay the
same, and guess what? We know what happened to them. They did not vote
for it, but yet they use his numbers.
An example is special education. The most the Democrats when they
were in power ever increased special education was 6 percent. With
Medicaid, in 5 years, we put it up to 18 percent. We increased special
education by $500 million this year, but yet the President's budget,
which none of them voted for, wanted over $1 billion, so Republicans
are now cutting special education. That is the logic, and that and tax
breaks for the rich is to fool the uninformed. It is a sham.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), someone who is very well positioned
to speak to this as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Basic
Research.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me express my
appreciation again to the committee and subcommittee chairs for their
effort, but it is time to set the record straight. This is what we need
the most to keep the rich rich and to provide for educational
opportunities for young people coming along so we
[[Page 11764]]
can stop having to lift the caps of H1-B visas to bring people over
here to do the job. This is the area that provides for that research
and provides for the support of teachers and who get our young people
educated so that they can enter this marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to stop faking an attempt to tell the
real truth. The very rich in this country have not begged for this tax
break. We are trying to cut all the basic things in order to save the
money to give this tax cut for the very, very rich.
We have made them have the opportunity for this wealth by this very
research that can be done right here with these dollars. Mr. Chairman,
$500 million is merely a drop in the bucket for what we will get in
return. Every dollar we have ever put in research has come back
fourfold.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. It will
restore over $500 million cut by the underlying bill from the
President's historic budget proposal for the National Science
Foundation. The increase will bolster the activities of an agency with
a critically important role in sustaining the nation's capabilities in
science and engineering research and education.
Basic research discoveries launch new industries that bring returns
to the economy that far exceed the public investment. One striking
example is information technology, which Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan has repeatedly cited as primarily responsible for the
nation's sparkling economic performance. Applications of information
technology alone account for one-third of U.S. economic growth, and
create jobs that pay almost 80 percent more than the average private-
sector wage.
Restoring funding for NSF is important for the overall health of the
nation's research enterprise because NSF is the only federal agency
that supports basic research and education in all fields of science and
engineering. While a relatively small agency, NSF nevertheless is the
source of 36% of federal funding for basic research performed at
universities and colleges in the physical sciences; 49% in
environmental sciences; 50% in engineering; 72% in mathematics; and 78%
in computer science.
Recent trends in basic research support in some important fields have
been alarming. For example, since 1993, physics funding has gone down
by 29%; chemistry by 9%; electrical engineering by 36%; and mathematics
by 6%.
Last year alone, NSF could not fund 3,800 proposals that received
very good or excellent ratings by peer reviewers. Good research ideas
that are not pursued are lost opportunities. The amendment will greatly
reduce the number of meritorious research ideas doomed to rejection
because of inadequate budgets.
The amendment will enable NSF to fund 4,000 more awards than the
underlying bill for state-of-the-art research and education activities.
It will prevent the curtailing of investments in exciting, cutting-edge
research initiatives, such as information technology, nanoscale science
and engineering, and environmental research. The effect of the
amendment will be to speed the development of new discoveries with
immense potential to generate significant benefits to society.
Past examples of NSF research amply demonstrate the payoffs possible:
Genetics--NSF played a critical role in supporting the basic research
that led to the breakthroughs of mapping the human genome for which NIH
justly receives credit. Research supported by NSF was key to the
development of the polymerase chain reaction and a great deal of the
technology used for sequencing.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging--MRI, one of the most comprehensive
medical diagnostic tools, was made possible by combining information
gained through the study of the spin characteristics of basic matter,
research in mathematics, and high flux magnets.
Jet Printers--The mathematical equations that describe the behavior
of fluid under pressure, which were developed under NSF support,
provided the foundation for developing the ink jet printer.
Ozone Hole--NSF-funded research in atmospheric chemistry identified
ozone depletion over the Antarctic, or the ``ozone hole'' as it has
come to be known, and established chlorofluorocarbons as the probable
cause. Since CFCs are used in many commercial applications, this
discovery has driven the search for benign substitutes and has led to a
reduction of CFC emissions.
The increase in funding made possible by the amendment also
translates into almost 18,000 more researchers, educators, and students
receiving NSF support. This is a direct, and positive, effect on the
shortages projected in the high-tech workforce. It will increase the
number of well-trained scientists and engineers needed for the Nation's
future.
I regret that H.R. 4635 limits support for NSF-sponsored research
that will lead to breakthroughs in information technology, materials,
environmental protection, and a host of technology dependent
industries.
The amendment will help sustain the economic growth that has been
fueled by advances in basic research by restoring needed resources for
the math, science, and engineering research and education activities of
the National Science Foundation.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and
since I have no further requests for time, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Holt
amendment to restore the funding to the National Science Foundation in
the amount of $508 million. As a former superintendent of my State
schools, I know firsthand that the support for NSF for science and
engineering education is so important. Every dollar invested in this
agency returns manyfold its worth in economic growth.
As the lead source of Federal funding for basic research at colleges
and universities, NSF supports research in educational programs that
are crucial to technological advances in the private sector and for
training of our next generation of scientists and engineers, as we have
already heard.
This appropriation bill will jeopardize the Nation's investment in
the future by cutting off NSF funding for science and engineering
research and education by over $500 million.
This is about 11% below the requested level. This reduction will
seriously undermine priority investments in cutting-edge research and
eliminate funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and
mathematics educators.
At a time when we are trying to improve the quality and quantity of
science and mathematics in the United States, the bill is calling for
an education cut that includes a reduction of 21%, or over 30 million,
below the request for undergraduate education--including the nearly 50%
cut in requested funding for the National Science, Math, Engineering
and Technology Digital Library. These investments are key components of
the Administration's 21st Century Workforce Initiative and critical to
enable students to compete in the today's knowledge-based economy.
Our values call on us to invest in our people for our nation's future
rather than to waste our resources on an irresponsible tax plan.
{time} 1530
This is about 11 percent below the requested level, and this
reduction will seriously undermine previous investments in cutting edge
technology and jeopardize research.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding time to me.
First let me compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). In
a very short period of time in the Congress he has distinguished
himself as an expert in the area of government-sponsored research, and
also has been its strongest advocate.
I want to say that it is particularly appropriate that he is the
author of this amendment because of the reputation that he is
establishing in this area. We appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
Mr. Chairman, let me also compliment the chairman of my subcommittee
for being able to find money for a 4 percent increase in the NSF
budget. In this budget allocation that we were given in our committee,
that is quite a feat. It is in fact a recognition of his attitude
towards how important basic funding research is.
But it is not enough. Our economy, our new economy, demands that we
invest more in the National Science Foundation in basic research. That
is why I strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), who knows of
[[Page 11765]]
what he speaks. He in fact has done NSF-funded research.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-Holt amendment. Work
funded by the NSF touches our lives every day in a multitude of ways,
from the meteorological technology like Doppler radar, which more
accurately predicts storm paths, to advances in fiber optics used by
the cable TV, the long distance telephone, and computer industries that
benefits every American, to research to develop edible vaccines which
would make vaccinating large groups of people easier.
Mr. Chairman, these scientific advances are the result of decades of
sustained research. We must invest in NSF research today to maximize
the benefits of science and technology for tomorrow and the future. Our
world and our economy are changing rapidly. We should not shortchange
basic science research because that would shortchange our very futures.
I urge passage of the amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his good remarks, and I also thank the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). I think they hit it on the
head.
What we are confronted with here, Mr. Chairman, is an appropriation
that comes in not just below the President's budget but below the
request of the majority party.
In their budget resolution with great fanfare just a couple of months
ago they announced that they had increased the number for research to
nearly the President's budget. Now we are faced with an appropriations
bill that is $500 million below that. This is pennywise and pound
foolish. Our investments in research have paid off.
I am especially troubled by the $34 million reduction in NSF's
education programs below this request. Cuts in undergraduate education
undermine scholastic endeavors in every State in the Nation. In my own
central New Jersey district, NSF education programs are funding
projects at Monmouth University and Princeton University and Rider
University. It would be a big mistake to reduce funding in these
crucial areas.
Mr. Chairman, economists do not agree on much, I find, but there is
one thing that I hear over and over again from economists from Berkley
to Harvard to Chicago to Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. We are
now enjoying the fruits of investment in research and development made
in decades past.
We are not talking about just a little tweaking of the NSF and
Federal research budget. We need to make a significantly greater
investment in the research budget if we have any hope of maintaining
the kind of economic growth that we are coming to rely on.
We also need a smart, well-trained work force, and NSF contributes
directly to that through education in elementary and secondary schools
through higher education and through public education. We will not find
better investments in our children's future than investment in
education and in research and development. That is what this amendment
is about.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, to the Fiscal Year
2001 VA-HUD Appropriations bill. Without the adoption of Mr. Holt's
timely amendment this bill will be woefully inadequate. As it stands,
this bill would cut the National Science Foundation's budget for
science and engineering research by over $500 million from the
President's request. Mr. Holt's amendment will reinstate much of this
funding and will allow important NSF programs to continue and grow.
The current version of H.R. 4635 includes a reduction of 21 percent
from NSF's requested sum for undergraduate education. This includes a
nearly 50 percent cut in funding for the National Science, Math,
Engineering and Technology Education Digital Library. Obviously,
today's students cannot become tomorrow's leaders if they do not have a
proper education. We must strive to give our students pertinent
knowledge in these important fields. Mr. Holt's amendment will allow
tomorrow's scientists to learn the valuable information they will need
for the 21st century.
Additionally, the bill we have on the floor today will eliminate
funding for almost 18,000 researchers and science and mathematics
educators. These scientists and educators perform cutting edge research
on a daily basis, and the elimination of their funding will weaken the
United States world leadership in the fields of science and
engineering. Furthermore, the bill will severely undercut funding for
basic research, including health care, environmental protection,
energy, and food production. Fortunately, Mr. Holt's amendment will
restore this funding and allow the United States to maintain its
positive reputation in the field of international research.
Moreover, H.R. 4635 would result in the elimination of 4,000 grants
for research and educational endeavors. Through this reduction,
investments in the crucial fields of information technology, nanoscale
science and engineering, and environmental research will drop, and thus
will slow the development of new discoveries. Clearly, these cuts must
be restored so that American technology can stay competitive in the
global marketplace. Mr. Holt's amendment will allow American technology
to continue to advance and improve.
Finally, we must remember that in the past 50 years, half of U.S.
economic productivity can be attributed to technological innovation. In
order to stimulate the economy for the next 50 years, we must make this
important investment in America's future and support the NSF. As a
result, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and I
commend Mr. Holt for his steadfast leadership on this issue.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order. I make a
point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget
totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 21, 2000, House Report 106-686.
This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b), and is not
permitted under section 302(f) of the Act.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard?
The Chair is authoritatively guided by an estimate of the Committee
on the Budget, pursuant to section 312 of the Budget Act, that an
amendment providing any net increase in new discretionary budget
authority would cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such
authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt)
would increase the level of new discretionary budget authority in the
bill. As such, the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is therefore sustained. The amendment is not in
order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
major research equipment
For necessary expenses of major construction projects
pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as
amended, including authorized travel, $76,600,000, to remain
available until expended.
education and human resources
For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $694,310,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That
to the extent that the amount of this appropriation is less
than the total amount authorized to be appropriated for
included program activities, all amounts, including floors
and ceilings, specified in the authorizing Act for those
program activities or their subactivities shall be reduced
proportionally.
salaries and expenses
For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia;
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services; $152,000,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and expenses''
in fiscal year 2001 for maintenance
[[Page 11766]]
and operation of facilities, and for other services, to be
provided during the next fiscal year.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $5,700,000, to remain available until September 30,
2002.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
payment to the neighborhood reinvestment corporation
For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $90,000,000, of which $5,000,000 shall
be for a homeownership program that is used in conjunction
with section 8 assistance under the United States Housing Act
of 1937.
Selective Service System
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Selective Service System,
including expenses of attendance at meetings and of training
for uniformed personnel assigned to the Selective Service
System, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 for civilian
employees; and not to exceed $1,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; $23,000,000: Provided, That none
of the funds appropriated by this Act may be expended for or
in connection with the induction of any person into the Armed
Forces of the United States.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Where appropriations in titles I, II, and III of
this Act are expendable for travel expenses and no specific
limitation has been placed thereon, the expenditures for such
travel expenses may not exceed the amounts set forth
therefore in the budget estimates submitted for the
appropriations: Provided, That this provision does not apply
to accounts that do not contain an object classification for
travel: Provided further, That this section shall not apply
to travel performed by uncompensated officials of local
boards and appeal boards of the Selective Service System; to
travel performed directly in connection with care and
treatment of medical beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs; to travel performed in connection with
major disasters or emergencies declared or determined by the
President under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; to travel
performed by the Offices of Inspector General in connection
with audits and investigations; or to payments to interagency
motor pools where separately set forth in the budget
schedules: Provided further, That if appropriations in titles
I, II, and III exceed the amounts set forth in budget
estimates initially submitted for such appropriations, the
expenditures for travel may correspondingly exceed the
amounts therefore set forth in the estimates in the same
proportion.
Sec. 402. Appropriations and funds available for the
administrative expenses of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Selective Service System shall be
available in the current fiscal year for purchase of
uniforms, or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
5901-5902; hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
The CHAIRMAN (during the reading). The Clerk will suspend the
reading.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly); amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey); the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver); amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Kelly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
Page 25, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 45, line 12, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250,
noes 170, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
AYES--250
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--170
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
[[Page 11767]]
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--14
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Ewing
Greenwood
Matsui
McIntosh
Rangel
Reynolds
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Slaughter
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1558
Ms. KILPATRICK and Messrs. FATTAH, SAWYER, TIERNEY and BARCIA changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. ESHOO, Mr. LATHAM and Mr. WISE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1600
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device may be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Page 46, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $4,770,000)''.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 211, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 300]
AYES--207
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--211
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Abercrombie
Campbell
Cook
Cox
DeLay
Deutsch
Hutchinson
Kennedy
McIntosh
Moran (VA)
Rangel
Reynolds
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1606
Mr. DAVIS of Florida and Mr. SNYDER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
Mr. CRAMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 300, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
amendment offered by Mr. Olver
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 314,
noes 108, not voting 12, as follows:
[[Page 11768]]
[Roll No. 301]
AYES--314
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
NOES--108
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bateman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duncan
Everett
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kingston
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Ney
Norwood
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Abercrombie
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Gekas
McIntosh
Rangel
Reynolds
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1616
Mr. WAMP and Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. CANNON, DICKEY, and McNULTY changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 48 offered by Mr. Roemer
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 48 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98,
noes 325, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 302]
AYES--98
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Camp
Carson
Chabot
Coble
Conyers
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dingell
Duncan
Evans
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
McInnis
Meehan
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Myrick
Nadler
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Ramstad
Rivers
Roemer
Roukema
Ryan (WI)
Sanders
Sanford
Schaffer
Shays
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOES--325
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
[[Page 11769]]
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kasich
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Abercrombie
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
McIntosh
Rangel
Reynolds
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 1625
Messrs. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, MARKEY, and FOSSELLA changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. NADLER, OLVER, and PEASE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, I was unavoidably
detained from presence on the House floor as a result of meetings at
the White House with respect to the Medal of Honor winners.
Had I been present, I would have voted on amendments to H.R. 4635,
Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001: on rollcall number 300,
yes; rollcall number 301, yes; and rollcall number 302, yes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 90, line 16, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 81, line 11 through page 90, line 16
is as follows:
Sec. 403. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
Federal National Mortgage Association, Government National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or any member
thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured bank within
the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act,
as amended (12 U.S.C. 1811-1831).
Sec. 404. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 405. No funds appropriated by this Act may be
expended--
(1) pursuant to a certification of an officer or employee
of the United States unless--
(A) such certification is accompanied by, or is part of, a
voucher or abstract which describes the payee or payees and
the items or services for which such expenditure is being
made; or
(B) the expenditure of funds pursuant to such
certification, and without such a voucher or abstract, is
specifically authorized by law; and
(2) unless such expenditure is subject to audit by the
General Accounting Office or is specifically exempt by law
from such audit.
Sec. 406. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency may be expended for the transportation
of any officer or employee of such department or agency
between their domicile and their place of employment, with
the exception of any officer or employee authorized such
transportation under 31 U.S.C. 1344 or 5 U.S.C. 7905.
Sec. 407. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used for payment, through grants or contracts, to recipients
that do not share in the cost of conducting research
resulting from proposals not specifically solicited by the
Government: Provided, That the extent of cost sharing by the
recipient shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the
grantee or contractor and the Government in the research.
Sec. 408. None of the funds in this Act may be used,
directly or through grants, to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant
(whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at
more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV
of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by
law.
Sec. 409. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to pay the expenses of, or otherwise compensate, non-
Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory
proceedings. Nothing herein affects the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission pursuant to section 7 of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.).
Sec. 410. Except as otherwise provided under existing law,
or under an existing Executive Order issued pursuant to an
existing law, the obligation or expenditure of any
appropriation under this Act for contracts for any consulting
service shall be limited to contracts which are: (1) a matter
of public record and available for public inspection; and (2)
thereafter included in a publicly available list of all
contracts entered into within 24 months prior to the date on
which the list is made available to the public and of all
contracts on which performance has not been completed by such
date. The list required by the preceding sentence shall be
updated quarterly and shall include a narrative description
of the work to be performed under each such contract.
Sec. 411. Except as otherwise provided by law, no part of
any appropriation contained in this Act shall be obligated or
expended by any executive agency, as referred to in the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et
seq.), for a contract for services unless such executive
agency: (1) has awarded and entered into such contract in
full compliance with such Act and the regulations promulgated
thereunder; and (2) requires any report prepared pursuant to
such contract, including plans, evaluations, studies,
analyses and manuals, and any report prepared by the agency
which is substantially derived from or substantially includes
any report prepared pursuant to such contract, to contain
information concerning: (A) the contract pursuant to which
the report was prepared; and (B) the contractor who prepared
the report pursuant to such contract.
Sec. 412. Except as otherwise provided in section 406, none
of the funds provided in this Act to any department or agency
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of such department or agency.
Sec. 413. None of the funds provided in this Act to any
department or agency shall be obligated or expended to
procure passenger automobiles as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001
with an EPA estimated miles per gallon average of less than
22 miles per gallon.
Sec. 414. None of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act shall be used to enter into any new lease of real
property if the estimated annual rental is more than $300,000
unless the Secretary submits, in writing, a report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Congress and a period of
30 days has expired following the date on which the report is
received by the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 415. (a) It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) In providing financial assistance to, or entering into
any contract with, any entity using funds made available in
this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest
extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice
describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 416. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to implement any cap on reimbursements to grantees for
indirect costs, except as published in Office of Management
and Budget Circular A-21.
Sec. 417. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2001 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 418. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program,
[[Page 11770]]
project, or activity, when it is made known to the Federal
entity or official to which the funds are made available that
the program, project, or activity is not in compliance with
any Federal law relating to risk assessment, the protection
of private property rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 419. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, as amended, are hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to each such
corporation or agency and in accord with law, and to make
such contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year
limitations as provided by section 104 of the Act as may be
necessary in carrying out the programs set forth in the
budget for 2001 for such corporation or agency except as
hereinafter provided: Provided, That collections of these
corporations and agencies may be used for new loan or
mortgage purchase commitments only to the extent expressly
provided for in this Act (unless such loans are in support of
other forms of assistance provided for in this or prior
appropriations Acts), except that this proviso shall not
apply to the mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of
these corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 420. NASA Full Cost Accounting.--Title III of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, P.L. 85-568, is
amended by adding the following new section at the end:
``Sec. 312. (a) Appropriations for the Administration for
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall be made in three
accounts, ``Human space flight'', ``Science, aeronautics and
technology,'' and an account for amounts appropriated for the
necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General.
Appropriations shall remain available for two fiscal years.
Each account shall include the planned full costs of the
Administration's related activities.
``(b) To ensure the safe, timely, and successful
accomplishment of Administration missions, the Administration
may transfer amounts for Federal salaries and benefits;
training, travel and awards; facility and related costs;
information technology services; publishing services;
science, engineering, fabricating and testing services; and
other administrative services among accounts, as necessary.
``(c) The Administrator, in consultation with the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, shall determine what
balances from the ``Mission support'' account are to be
transferred to the ``Human space flight'' and ``Science,
aeronautics and technology'' accounts. Such balances shall be
transferred and merged with the ``Human space flight'' and
``Science, aeronautics and technology'' accounts, and remain
available for the period of which originally appropriated.''
Sec. 421. None of the funds provided in title II for
technical assistance, training, or management improvements
may be obligated or expended unless HUD provides to the
Committees on Appropriations a description of each proposed
activity and a detailed budget estimate of the costs
associated with each activity as part of the Budget
Justifications. For fiscal year 2001, HUD shall transmit this
information to the Committees by November 1, 2000, for 30
days of review.
Sec. 422. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act, no
part of any appropriation for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development shall be available for any activity in
excess of amounts set forth in the budget estimates submitted
to the Congress.
Sec. 423. Pesticide Tolerance Fees.--None of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act shall be
used to promulgate a final regulation to implement changes in
the payment of pesticide tolerance processing fees as
proposed at 64 Fed. Reg. 31040, or any similar proposals. The
Environmental Protection Agency may proceed with the
development of such a rule.
Sec. 424. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
effective with enactment of this Act, the General Services
Administration shall allocate one Senior Executive Service
slot for the position of Director, Federal Consumer
Information Center, from the total number of Senior Executive
Service positions authorized to the General Services
Administration by the Office of Personnel Management:
Provided, That said Senior Executive Service slot shall be a
permanent career reserved position and filled with all due
speed: Provided further, That this Senior Executive Service
slot shall remain hereafter in the Federal Consumer
Information Center. Such funds as may be necessary to carry
out this provision shall be made available from funds
appropriated to the Federal Consumer Information Center Fund.
Sec. 425. None of the funds provided in title III of this
Act shall be obligated or expended to support joint research
programs between the United States Air Force and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Specifically, none of
the funds in this Act shall be used to support the activities
of the AF-NASA Council on Aeronautics and the AFSPC-NRO-NASA
Partnership Council.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh),
as he knows, there is report language attached to this bill that tells
the EPA not to undertake dredging of contaminated sediments until the
completion of a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
I understand that similar language has been included in the VA-HUD
report in each of the past 2 years.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, that is correct.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman may know,
sediments in the Fox River in Northeast Wisconsin have been determined
to be contaminated with PCBs.
Last year a number of the paper companies along this river did a
dredging demonstration project, commonly referred to as 5657.
Unfortunately, the demonstration project did not remove enough of the
contaminated sediments to adequately clean up the site.
{time} 1630
I along with most of the citizens of Northeastern Wisconsin have been
pushing both the paper companies and the EPA to complete the cleanup of
this site. Fortunately, one of the companies involved recently reached
an agreement with EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
to go back into 56/57 and complete the dredging to its original
specifications. Some people have expressed concern that this report
language might have an effect on this agreement and on the overall push
for a settlement and cleaning up of the Fox River. I want to ask for a
clarification on this matter. Specifically, can the gentleman from New
York tell me whether this report language will have any impact on the
work scheduled for the Fox River?
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. Specifically, this
language says that, and I quote, ``exceptions are provided for
voluntary agreements,'' and therefore I can assure him that this
language will not affect the specific project he is concerned with, the
site he called 56/57. Furthermore, nothing in this report language
should be construed as preventing or discouraging a prompt settlement
between the EPA and the paper companies along the Fox River for cleanup
of the PCBs.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for this clarification
and for his attention to this matter.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. My
friend from New York knows that I have been greatly concerned about the
chronic problem of transborder sewage pollution coming from Mexico
which continues to contaminate the oceans and close the beaches of the
communities of South San Diego County, including my hometown of
Imperial Beach. I have been working closely with the gentleman to
address this problem of protecting the public health in my community.
Specifically, I want to thank the gentleman for his careful
consideration of my request to take action on the issue of the
arbitrary cap on the spending limit on the U.S. international
wastewater treatment plant across from Tijuana, Mexico, that treats
their sewage and discharges it onto the beaches of my hometown of
Imperial Beach. This cap was put in place in this VA-HUD bill by the
102nd Congress in 1992-1993. The sad result of this cap is that the
international treatment plant, which is operated by the Federal
Government, is now operating in violation of the Clean Water Act. This
arbitrary cap must be lifted in order to provide for
[[Page 11771]]
construction of secondary treatment on our side of the border that will
adequately address both current and future flows of Mexican sewage.
The Federal Government requires upgrades for environmental reasons at
similar private sector and local facilities all over this country, but
at the same time this arbitrary cap which was set by a previous
Congress is resulting in the violation by the Federal Government of its
own Clean Water Act. As the chairman of the subcommittee is aware, I
have prepared an amendment to his bill which would have sought a
lifting of this cap, and the facilitation of the timely construction of
the secondary sewage facility. However, I am informed that the
amendment would have been subject to a point of order as legislation on
an appropriation bill.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman for his statement and I thank him
also for his strong environmental leadership in Southern California. He
is noted throughout this House for his clear thinking. The gentleman is
also correct that while the intentions of this amendment are quite
clear, because the effect of the amendment would alter existing law, it
would be in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and I would reluctantly
be forced to bring a point of order against the amendment which would
be sustained.
Mr. BILBRAY. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. Given this
procedural situation, I will not be offering my amendment at this time
but will continue to work together with the gentleman on his bill to
address the cap issue as the legislation moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the Federal Government be required
to achieve the same environmental standards that they and we require on
everyone else.
Mr. WALSH. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and will certainly
continue to work with him on this issue. The gentleman from California
has made very clear to me the chronic problems his community faces as a
result of the problems of Mexican sewage flows, and he has made clear
his desire to lift the cap in order to help provide the appropriate
levels of treatment to do so.
While we share his interest in resolving this issue, we remain
concerned with the preferred proposal which EPA has chosen by which to
provide secondary treatment which we believe would not be adequate to
protect the public health. We therefore believe it would be unwise to
raise the cap at this time. As is stated in the report, however, the
committee will be continuing to examine progress on this issue,
including the potential for secondary facilities to be sited in Mexico.
We anticipate revisiting this important issue of secondary treatment at
a later time.
Mr. BILBRAY. I want to thank the gentleman for his consideration and
commitment. Mr. Chairman, my community is just asking how many more
decades have to pass before the citizens of Imperial Beach and South
San Diego are protected by their Federal Government from pollution from
a foreign country.
House of Representatives,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2000.
Hon. James Walsh, Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs,
HUD, and Independent Agencies, House Appropriations
Committee, the Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Walsh: I am writing to follow up on our
continuing conversations regarding the public health and
environmental threats posed by untreated Mexican sewage
flowing into the U.S. and on to beaches in my district, and
the need for secondary sewage treatment along our border with
Mexico. I greatly appreciate the level of attention you and
your staff have shown to me on this critical issue to date.
As you well know, the Environmental Protection Agency has
selected a ponding alternative for 25 mgd of secondary
treatment at the International Wastewater Treatment Plant
(IWTP). While EPA has indicated that its chosen alternative
would not require the appropriation of new monies, it
nonetheless remains extremely controversial in South Bay
communities. There is widespread concern that constructing
ponds at this site would be shortsighted for two significant
engineering reasons--(1) current levels of sewage have
already reached to 50 mgd and higher, which would
overcapacitate the 25 mgd ponds from day one, and (2)
potential future expansion of the IWTP's capacity would be
precluded by the location of secondary ponds on this site.
It was for these reasons that I prevailed on the EPA
throughout much of last year to give every possible
consideration to the construction (by a public-private
partnership) of a secondary treatment facility in Mexico,
which would utilize the same kind of technology preferred by
the EPA, but would have the ability to build out to treatment
levels of 50, 75 or even 100 mdg, and in the process reclaim
the wastewater for reuse in Mexico. It is clear that capacity
levels of this magnitude are going to be needed in order to
meet the needs of this rapidly growing region. However, the
EPA has made clear its intention to proceed with its
preferred alternative on the U.S. side, and has asked for
your support in raising the cap on spending at the IWTP, in
order to construct the ponds with funds already appropriated
to it within the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund
(BEIF).
I have reservations about the practicality of the EPA's
preferred alternative, and believe that the immediate threat
to our ocean and beaches in the U.S. stems from untreated
Mexican sewage flows which are not being captured and treated
at the IWTP. However, it is nonetheless critical to
communities in the region, such as my hometown of Imperial
Beach, that this effluent is treated to secondary levels, and
that the capacity for doing so is able to be expanded in a
timely manner in order to address the increasing levels of
flow from Mexico. In order to achieve this target of
secondary treatment, regardless of the alternative or
technology chosen, the existing cap on spending will need to
be raised. In a letter dated April 12, the EPA specifically
asked for your assistance in this regard.
You will recall that I supported a similar request from the
EPA to raise the spending cap in the waning hours of the
105th Congress; however, it was submitted by the
Administration too late to merit serious consideration at
that ``eleventh hour.'' I recognize and appreciate the
Subcommittee's fiscal and policy concerns about EPA's
preferred alternative which you have outlined to me
previously, including the subsequent likely need in the very
near future to construct yet another costly facility in the
US. to treat sewage flows which will exceed 25 mdg capacity
of secondary ponds. I know that is a challenging issue your
Subcommittee; however, the need for secondary treatment is
clear. Therefore, I would respectfully urge you to pursue
language in your FY 2001 bill which would facilitate raising
the cap and embarking on a means to achieve secondary
treatment which will comprehensively address this problem.
I greatly appreciate your continued concern for and
interest in this important issue, and thank you again for
your consideration. Please don't hesitate to contact me
directly, or Dave Schroeder of my staff, should your have
question or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Brian Bilbray,
Member of Congress.
____
Amendment to H.R. 4635, as Reported, VA HUD Appropriations Act, 2001,
Offered by Mr. Bilbray of California
Page 90, after line 16, insert the following:
Sec. 426. The limitation on the amounts of funds
appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency that may
be used for making grants under section 510 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 under the heading state revolving funds/
construction grants in title III of the Departments of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat.
1599) shall not apply to funds appropriated in this Act or
any other Act approved after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
for a colloquy between himself and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis).
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate very much the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) yielding to me. In turn I want to express
my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for their
longstanding interest in the subject we are about to discuss.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) to enter into a colloquy to clarify the effects of this
legislation on EPA's pending radon drinking water regulation. It may
surprise some in this body to know that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) and I have a long history of working together on behalf of
the environment, particularly in California. The issue of radon gives
us another opportunity to
[[Page 11772]]
work together in a bipartisan fashion. Water districts across the
country are understandably concerned about the high costs of treating
water for radon while little is done to address radon in indoor air.
EPA's own science indicates that 98 percent of the threat from radon
comes from sources other than drinking water. Is this the gentleman's
understanding?
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is correct. I would also note our history
of working together to protect the environment. Radon in indoor air is
the second leading cause of lung cancer and is a serious public health
concern. Although radon in tap water can pose significant risk, the
clear majority of the risk from radon on a national basis comes from
radon seeping into homes from soil. For this reason and for the reasons
the gentleman stated, the Safe Drinking Water Act was drafted to allow
for the implementation of multimedia programs that would allow States
to focus on radon more on indoor air than on drinking water. This would
allow the States to address radon in the most cost-effective manner
possible. If States implement these programs, then public water systems
could comply with much less stringent standards while we achieve
improved public health protection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I agree that radon is a serious public
health issue and that a multimedia approach is a sensible way to
address it. Unfortunately, I have heard many concerns from my
constituents about this proposed regulation. I believe other Members
have as well. In California alone, if the State does not adopt a
multimedia program, the water agencies have stated that this new
standard for radon in water would cost water customers some $400
million in the first year of implementation. Would the gentleman agree
that it may be appropriate for Congress to pass legislation to provide
greater health protection than the proposed radon drinking water rule?
My intent is to provide reasonable resources to address radon in indoor
air and provide greater certainty to drinking water providers that they
will be spending money sensibly.
Mr. WAXMAN. I agree and believe the law could be strengthened in this
manner. I want to commit to working together on an expedited basis to
develop legislative language that would achieve these goals. I believe
we do not need to delay the EPA regulations to achieve this goal and
that delaying the regulations may be counterproductive. Will the
gentleman agree to work on legislation with technical assistance from
EPA?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I certainly will. I appreciate the gentleman
extending that hand, for there is little doubt that this problem does
not know partisan lines and to be able to work together with him
dealing with EPA would be very helpful to me and much appreciated.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman also agree to address the radon report
language in conference to prevent the rule from being delayed?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, I will if the gentleman will agree to
work on a bipartisan approach to this problem that is a good solution.
Bipartisan legislation could address the concerns of all stakeholders.
I look forward to working with the gentleman.
Mr. WAXMAN. I look forward to working with him in seeing that we can
resolve this in a way that will be most productive for protecting
public health.
Mr. LEWIS of California. We appreciate the committee's cooperation.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Page 19, after line 21, insert the following new section:
Sec. 114. Not later than March 30, 2001, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a
report on the program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
for the establishment and operation at Department medical
centers of Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical
Centers (MIRECCs). The report shall include the following:
(1) Identification of the allocation by the Secretary, from
funds appropriated for the Department in this Act and for
prior fiscal years, of funds for such Centers, including the
number of Centers for which funds were provided and the
locations of those Centers.
(2) A description of the research activities carried out by
those Centers with respect to major mental illnesses
affecting veterans.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment I am offering today would require the Department of
Veterans Affairs by March 30 of next year to report to the Congress on
the establishment and operation of their mental illness research,
education and clinical centers. In addition, the report would include
an accounting of the funds allocated by the Department for these
centers and a description of the research activities carried out by
these facilities.
Let me say that serious mental illness remains one of the most
debilitating and costly scourges facing individuals who suffer, their
families and friends and our Nation's communities. Among those who
suffer are thousands and thousands of veterans. Nearly 2 years ago
right outside these doors, Officers Gibson and Chestnut were gunned
down just inside this Capitol by a man who suffered from serious mental
illness. I asked myself then when would we as a Nation look this set of
illnesses squarely in the eye and do what is required to unlock the
mysteries that shroud medical understanding and treatment.
Importantly, at the direction of this Congress, the Department of
Veterans Affairs has now opened eight mental illness research,
education and clinical centers across our country. The Department is
noted for so many scientific breakthroughs. I just want to also state
for the record that three of the centers that currently operate were
opened in 1997, three more in 1998, and the last two in 1999. In the
1999 selection process, there were eight applicants and of these, five
merited site visits and two were considered outstanding and were
approved.
But it is estimated that even with the opening of these centers, the
Veterans Affairs budget for mental health research has remained flat
for a decade and a half.
VA mental health research remains disproportionate to the utilization
of mental illness treatment services by veterans. In fact, in 1988 only
11 percent of all VA research was dedicated to chronic mental illness,
substance abuse and post-traumatic stress syndrome, despite the fact
that nearly 25 percent of patients in the system receive mental illness
treatment. That is one system where people are actually being treated.
The problem is we do not have answers to so many of these serious
illnesses, illnesses like schizophrenia, illnesses like bipolar
disorder, illnesses that do not go away but are in fact chemical
imbalances of the central nervous system.
My amendment is an attempt to get the Department of Veterans Affairs
to carefully focus on what they are doing to provide this Congress with
a better understanding on the mission of each of the centers, their
funding as well as their achievements so we can work hand in hand with
the Department to help not just find answers for America's veterans but
indeed to use the Department of Veterans Affairs to find answers for
all those who suffer from these horrendous diseases here in our
country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1645
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) claim the
time in opposition?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page 11773]]
Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition, and I thank the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her amendment. I thank her for her strong
advocacy for the mentally ill. She has always worked extremely hard and
with real dedication to this issue to ensure that medical and social
services are reached by those in need, especially our veterans.
I know of no objection to this amendment, and for that reason, I
would accept the amendment and urge its adoption.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his openness and willingness to
work hand and hand with us on this and also express my appreciation on
behalf of all of those who suffer.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for
allowing me this time early on in this particular title. I genuinely
appreciate the acceptance of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with a member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, a distinguished Member (Mr.
Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for
yielding to me on this issue. I want to report to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh) that the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
has just contacted me to state their claim that any failure to achieve
an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the EPA is not for any lack
of trying on the part of the NRC.
I hope that as we move to and through the conference that we have an
opportunity to look into the matter and examine the facts and merits of
their claim.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for communicating this
matter to me and to the subcommittee and will look into the claim of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the attendant report language.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Edwards
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Edwards:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. (a) The amount provided in title I for ``VETERANS
HEALTH ADMINISTRATION--Medical Care'' is hereby increased by
$500,000,000, and the amount provided in title I for
``VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION--Medical and Prosthetic
Research'' is hereby increased by $65,000,000.
(b) Any reduction for a taxable year beginning before
January 1, 2003, in the rate of tax on estates under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is enacted during 2000
shall not apply to a taxable estate in excess of $20,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and a Member opposed each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I can think of no group that deserves Congress' support
more than America's veterans, and this amendment is about supporting
and keeping our commitment to those veterans.
According to the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the $535 million
in increased VA medical care and research funding in this amendment is
needed and I quote, ``to fill the funding gap so the needs of our
Nation's veterans can be properly met.''
Dennis Cullinan, director of the National Legislative Service for the
Veterans of Foreign Wars sent me a letter 2 days ago saying the VFW,
and I quote, ``would like to take this opportunity to extend our
support to your amendment.''
Mr. Chairman, why is this amendment needed? The answer is very
simple, to keep our commitment to our Nation's veterans, just as those
veterans have kept their commitment to us. As the DAV, VFW, AMVETS and
Paralyzed Veterans of America have said, ``over the past decade,
spending for veterans' health care has fallen dramatically short of
keeping pace with medical inflation and associated cost increases.''
How do we pay for my amendment? We do it by simply delaying the
recently passed estate tax reduction for estates only over $20 million.
That would save us $1 billion over 2 years, the exact same amount it
would take to improve health care for America's 25 million veterans.
In other words, we can see that millions of veterans receive the
health care they need and deserve if this House will simply today say
that approximately 6 of the richest families in each State should not
receive a $500 million a year tax windfall.
The choice is very clear. We can tell one-ten thousandth of 1 percent
of the richest estates in America that we are not going to give you a
tax break. Why? So we can take care of the millions of veterans who
sacrificed to ensure your family's freedom and opportunity.
The question today is, whose side are we on? Do we want to help
millions of veterans struggling to get better health care, or do we
want to help one ten-thousandth of 1 percent of America's most affluent
families?
Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of candidate speeches lately about
values, but I would suggest that, as Members of Congress, how we vote
on budget priorities says a lot more about our values than all of our
speeches combined.
To keep our Nation's commitment to veterans, we do not have to undo
the entire estate tax reform bill passed just 2 weeks ago on this
floor.
We do not even have to raise taxes on the wealthy, who frankly have
already received enormous tax cuts through reductions and capital gains
taxes. All we have to do is tell Bill Gates and Steve Forbes and about
300 of America's richest estates each year that we believe that taking
care of millions of veterans and their health care is more important
than giving another tax break.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be a simple choice. It is a clear
choice. If no Member of this House will object this afternoon, we can
pass this amendment and help veterans today.
I would point out the Republican leadership did let tax provisions be
put in the appropriations bill passed on October 20 of 1998 on this
floor. I would hope the Republican leadership would give America's
veterans the same procedural respect today that hundreds of other less
deserving groups were given in October of 1998 on the appropriations
bill in this House.
Mr. Chairman, let me say they have done a very respectable, fine job
of supporting veterans given the Republican budget constraints caused
by massive regressive tax proposals.
I do want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for their subcommittee
work. They have done well within those constraints.
This amendment though is not about their work on the Appropriations
Subcommittee, rather this amendment is about a clear choice of whether
Congress should spend an additional $500 million helping one-ten
thousandth of 1 percent of America's families or whether we want to
take that same $500 million and help millions of America's veterans.
[[Page 11774]]
It is a clear choice. This amendment is about our priorities in this
House. It is about our values. It is about whose side are we on. Let us
vote for the Edwards amendment and stand by the veterans who have stood
up for all of America's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has 5 minutes
remaining, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has reserved his
time and his point of order.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans), who is the senior Democrat on the Committee on
Veterans Affairs and has been a stalwart fighter on behalf of veterans'
programs in this Congress.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) for his amendment. He is a great advocate for veterans as his
amendment again demonstrates.
The Edwards amendment increases funding next year for veterans'
medical care, by $500 million and funding for the VA medical research
by $35 million. These increases are needed if veterans are to receive
access to timely and high-quality medical care and services, and the
research program of VA is to be adequately funded.
Too many veterans are being forced to wait too long to receive the
medical care they need and deserve. Today some veterans are waiting as
long as 6 months for an appointment with a primary care provider. The
waiting list for an appointment with the specialist can actually be
longer.
The Edwards amendment provides resources to improve the quality and
timely delivery of medical care to our Nation's veterans. VA is
recognized worldwide as a leader in medical research.
The Edwards amendment will increase funds for the VA medical research
program next year by $65 million. Under the current level of funding
for VA medical research, only a small portion of worthwhile projects
are provided needed funding. The Edwards increase in research funding
is a sound investment to enable VA researchers to make breakthrough
discoveries which will benefit veterans and the general population.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for offering
his amendment, it is a sign of his leadership on these issues. I urge
my colleagues to vote for the Edwards amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner), a ranking Democrat on the VA Subcommittee on
Benefits. He also has been a real leader on veterans' programs in this
Congress.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Edwards amendment and
in strong support of our Nation's veterans. The amendment of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) calls for an increase in $500
million in the health budget of the VA. This money was not just pulled
from the air, that figure, it comes from this document, the Independent
Budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, a comprehensive policy
document created by veterans for veterans.
All of the veterans in this Nation got together to say what do we
need for a professional Veterans Administration and one that will keep
up our health and our benefits. This is a professional job, an
analytical job. Let me just tell Members where that $500 million will
go.
Under the section on staff shortages, in this independent budget, let
me just read what veterans experts have concluded, faced with severe
budget shortfalls, VA facilities have laid off hundreds of employees,
including physicians, nurses, physicians assistants, and other clinical
staff.
Layoffs combined with staff attrition from retirement, transfer and
resignation have left VA facilities with insufficient clinical staff to
meet veterans' needs. In some cases, administrators have had difficulty
filling vacant positions compounding their staff shortages.
We have witnessed many cases of poor quality care that are the direct
result of inadequate staffing. For example, one spinal cord injury
center with dangerously low staffing levels has seen its mortality rate
increase threefold during the last 4 years. We are killing veterans
because we have inadequate staffing levels.
Adequate numbers of well-trained staff are needed to keep up with the
workload to prevent potentially harmful delays in care and to provide
appropriate care. At one VA center in our country, for example, a
patient faced a 97-day wait for an appointment at the vascular clinic
and a 14-month wait for dental prosthetics at the dental clinic.
One stroke patient at this medical center reported having his
outpatient rehabilitation therapy suspended for several weeks, because
his therapist went on vacation and there was no one to cover her.
Because of staff shortages brought on by budget constraints, VA
facilities have drastically reduced services or eliminated them
altogether.
After the dental department at one medical center was downsized from
5 to 3, routine oral exams given to veterans as part of their physicals
were simply phased out. This was done despite the fact that dentists at
the clinic found an unusually high number of oral cancers from veterans
during these exams.
What are we doing to the people who have provided us with this great
economy that we have today? We are eliminating the services that can
save their life or prolong the quality of their life. Not only is
elimination of routine oral exams inconsistent with VA's goal of
increasing access to primary and preventive care, but it increases
expenses over the long run.
We have concluded that we have crossed the boundaries. We are not
providing our veterans with sufficient care.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have the amendment here in front of me, and I think
it needs to be commented on that we have increased veterans' medical
care almost $1.4 billion this year. We increased veterans' medical care
a $1.7 billion last year. Those are record level increases in veterans'
medical care, and they were properly appropriated for. These additional
funds, the $500 million included in he amendment, are not offset.
There is no source of these funds available to us. In addition, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) provides an additional $35 million
for medical and prosthetic research.
We just, last night, added $30 million back into that category for
research, which was properly offset. The presenter of the amendment
looked into the budget, found some additional funds, we agreed there is
a proper use of those funds, and a higher priority went to research.
I just would restate that I think we have done our job. We have done
it well within the available funds. If additional funds become
available later on in the process, we will look at prioritizing those
also, but I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), he has done very well within the constraints that the
Republican leadership and the House has put on what we can spend on VA
health care. The problem is, that the multibillion dollar tax cut for
the wealthiest one-ten thousandth of 1 percent of families in America
that we passed 2 weeks ago provides less money for this bill.
We do have an offset in this bill. We just choose to help 25 million
veterans get better health care rather than giving 300 of America's
richest estates a further tax cut, that is a choice we should be
allowed to make.
{time} 1700
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of
order?
[[Page 11775]]
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, is there any time remaining on our side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take more than 30 seconds.
My friend on the other side has worked diligently. As a matter of
fact, this is one of the most bipartisan issues that we have, with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) and the ranking minority on this committee. But I would
say to my friends, the veterans have served this country, the United
States of America, and all the citizens made a promise to keep health
care. Subvention is a pilot program and a Band-Aid. TRICARE, FEHBP, we
are all working on those in a bipartisan way. But that promise was made
by all Americans, not just a few families.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that this amendment indirectly amends
existing law. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill, after the last section (before the
short title) insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or
administer the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) be allowed to control 5 of the 10
minutes I have been allotted.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of years particularly, the
chairman of the subcommittee on VA-HUD has done an admirable job in
ensuring that additional funds were allocated for the Veterans
Administration, especially and particularly for veterans health care.
In spite of his best efforts, however, many veterans in certain parts
of the country are getting inadequate health care nevertheless. That is
as the result solely and completely of a program administered within
the Department of Veterans Affairs known as the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation program, otherwise known as VERA.
VERA, in spite of its name, is wholly inequitable. Under VERA, we
have seen cuts in veterans health care in many parts of the country,
particularly throughout New England, New York, Pennsylvania, the
Midwest, the far West, and other places as well. In addition, we have
seen cuts in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado,
California, in addition to other States.
This amendment would provide that no money be allowed for the
administration of this program.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, which I
offer with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and
many others. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent
the VA from using the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation formula,
known as VERA, to allocate funding to 22 Veterans Integrated Service
Networks, known as VISNs, throughout the country. Instead, this
amendment would send the VA back to the drawing board to develop a
formula which would be truly equitable and which would distribute
funding across the Nation, so that all of our veterans, regardless of
where they live, would be provided with the same access to medical care
based on need.
Under the current formula, VISN 3, which includes New York and New
Jersey, has seen its funding cut by over 66 percent since 1997. The
funding shortfall has hampered VISN 3's ability to provide a full range
of medical services to veterans.
For example, look at the VA's VERA-based allocation of funding for
hepatitis C testing and treatment. The fiscal year 2000 budget provided
$190 million. The fiscal year 2001 budget under consideration today
would increase that amount to $340 million.
Hepatitis C is a growing problem in our Nation, especially among Viet
Nam-era veterans. It is approaching epidemic proportions in VISN 3 in
New York and New Jersey, where 26 percent of all veterans tested for
hepatitis C have tested positive. The VISN needs approximately $10
million this year just to provide hepatitis C treatment to veterans who
test positive for the virus and additional funding to pay for testing,
which can cost between $50 and $200 per person.
In March, VA Secretary Togo West told the Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations that he had not spent all of
the hepatitis C money in the fiscal year 2000 budget because the demand
was not there. Because this funding is allocated under the VERA
formula, our area has found itself in need of at least an additional
$22 million to pay for hepatitis C testing and treatment this year.
These are for veterans in need.
Mr. Chairman, because of the skewed distribution of funding under
VERA, under that formula, we are faced with a system of winners and
losers. When it comes to providing health care for veterans, there
should be no winners and losers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition?
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, with all respect and deference to my colleague, I rise
in opposition to this amendment. I rushed to get here, and I have been
on the floor all day waiting for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation
system, better known as VERA, was implemented to ensure that VA
resources followed the veterans who are moving to southern and western
States. This VERA formula has come under scrutiny many, many times; and
each time it has come under scrutiny, there was no way to skew the
figures, because the figures must go wherever the veterans are.
For a decade and a half, as more and more veterans moved to southern
and western States, our facilities and our services were overwhelmed by
the needs of our new veteran arrivals. Even today, our Florida veteran
facilities are finally beginning to get the resources we need after so
many years of neglect to care for our ever-growing veterans population.
VERA has been working well, Mr. Speaker; and our committee knows it has
been working well because it has been done in a fair and equitable way.
[[Page 11776]]
In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported that VERA makes
resource allocations more equitable than the previous system that was
in effect. In 1998, the PricewaterhouseCoopers accounting firm found
that VERA was sound in its concepts and methods and that VERA was also
ahead of other global budgeting systems that are based on historical
allocations with periodic adjustments.
Let us face it, Mr. Chairman. Whenever there is an allocation
formula, everyone cannot be happy. There are two sides of this, but you
cannot get away from the statistical evidence that is presented through
these studies. It is obvious that the money goes where the veterans go.
VERA is constantly being refined. Seven adjustments are being
implemented in this fiscal year. Florida, the State I represent, the
State the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) represents, the
State that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) represents, and
many of us, we have the second largest population of veterans among the
50 States. We have 1.7 million veterans, and that is still growing.
There are over 435,000 veterans in the seven counties of South Florida
alone, and 48 percent of these veterans are over 65 years of age.
Forty-eight percent of these veterans are over 65 years of age.
In fact, the population of veterans over 65 in just these seven South
Florida counties is greater, and I emphasize greater, than the entire
populations of veterans over 65 in 40 other States. That is a very
significant statistic, and I will repeat it: that the population of
veterans over 65 in just these seven South Florida counties is greater
than the entire population of veterans over 65 in 40 States.
I know that some States that are experiencing decreasing veteran
populations, they are very highly critical of VERA, and well they might
be; and they have attempted many times to short-circuit VERA in our VA-
HUD bill, and each time I have gone to the floor to really defend our
system of VERA.
As one who has lived through base closures and realignment, I know
how painful it is to close these underutilized facilities. There have
been claims that the veterans left behind in States that have been
losing veterans are older and sicker. That is what the other States are
saying, they are older and sicker. But, by my demonstration here today,
I have shown you that we have older veterans. These claims are not
supported by the facts.
So VERA is statistically sound; it is following the veterans, that
allocation is. So in view of the overwhelming evidence that VERA is
targeting VA resources to veteran populations that would need it most,
and doing so in a fair manner, I strongly oppose this amendment and
urge my colleagues to do the same, in fairness. Mr. Chairman, it is a
simple matter of fairness.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey
amendment. There is nothing fair or equitable about the current VERA
allocation formula. If you are from the Northeast, if you are from a
sparsely settled part of the country, like my State, veterans are
getting the back of hand by the VA. That is what you are getting. There
has to be a more equitable distribution of funds.
I will tell Members this, we must have a basic threshold level of
quality health care for veterans, no matter where they live. They have
to have adequate facilities, they have to have adequate services, and
when you have a formula, like VERA strictly distributing funds on a
population basis, with major outmigration from some areas, with
sparsely settled populations of veterans in others like Nebraska, our
veterans are not being treated fairly on VA health care.
I can tell you what is happening in Iowa and Nebraska, in our area.
We are being cut dramatically in funds, to the point that veterans are
not being served in our part of this country.
This formula has been unfair since it started. They simply will not
listen to us down there in the Veterans Affairs Department. They simply
go on and treat us unfairly. It is time to stop the use of this
inequitable VERA formula. Support the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today in strong support of the
amendment offered by the distinguished gentlemen from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) which would prohibit funds in the bill from being used by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to implement or administer the Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system. Unfortunately this has
turned into a regional legislative battle between northeastern states
and especially low-population Great Plans and Rocky Mountain states'
delegations on one hand, and the Sunbelt states with larger numbers of
veterans retirees on the other. Those of us representing the former see
our veterans left out in the cold while the money flows to the populace
Sunbelt states. Once again, we may be out-voted but it certainly isn't
fair to veterans in our states.
From the time the Administration announced this new system, this
Member has voiced his strong opposition to VERA because of its inherent
flaws in inequitable distribution of funds, and has supported funding
levels of the VA Health Administration above the amount the President
recommended.
Continuing action in previous years this Member has also recently co-
signed a letter to the Chairmen and ranking members of the House and
Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on VA/HUD expressing frustrations
and concerns with VERA and VISN 14 shortfalls.
This Member was proud to support the increase in funding Congress
provided for veterans health care in FY2000. Congress provided $1.7
billion over the President's request which was far more than ever
provided for VA health care in one year and the highest level of
increase over a President's budget request for veterans health care.
However, the veterans health care system in Nebraska continues to
experience growing service and funding shortfalls each year even after
the forced closing of two of our three inpatient facilities, reducing
the number of full time employees fourteen percent and completing
integration of all three VA Medical centers. In FY1999, the VISN 14
area (consisting of Nebraska and Iowa) experienced a $6 million
shortfall, and in FY2000 the shortfall is $17 million and the project
shortfall for FY2001 will be between $35 and $45 million. While VISN 14
continues to experience shortfalls in funding, the number of patients
continues to increase. Despite the regrettable ruling of non-
eligibility for in-patient care for large numbers of Nebraska veterans,
the number of patients grew from 59,412 in FY1996 to 75,101 in FY1999.
Clearly the VERA system has had a very negative impact on Nebraska
and other sparsely populated areas of the country and on the northeast
part of our nation. All members of Congress should agree, Mr. Chairman,
that the VA must provide adequate services and facilities for veterans
all across the country regardless of whether they live in sparsely
populated areas with resultant low usage numbers for VA hospitals. The
funding distribution unfairly reallocates the VA's health care budget
based strictly on a per capita veterans usage of facilities. There must
be at least a basic level of acceptable national infrastructure of
facilities, medical personnel, and services for meeting the very real
medical needs faced by our veterans wherever they live. There must be a
threshold funding level for VA medical services in each state and
region before any per-capita funding formula is applied. That is only
common sense, but this Administration has too little of that valuable
commodity when it comes to treating our veterans humanely and
equitably!
In closing Mr. Chairman, this Member urges his colleagues to support
the Hinchey amendment and fulfill the obligation to provide care to all
those veterans who have so honorably served our country--no matter
where they live in this country.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may yield myself 1 minute
again, I would like to say we cannot base this on opinion. Each of us
is opinionated because of where we live and the people we serve. We
must deal with the facts. That is what VERA does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey) was on the floor last year, and it was defeated
soundly. I have here, Mr. Chairman, several letters, one from the
Department of Veterans Affairs which I will make part of the Record,
from Dr. Garthwaite, which indicates that we should not, should not,
adopt the Hinchey amendment.
[[Page 11777]]
Mr. Chairman, obviously I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Basically it aims to dismantle what this House overwhelmingly approved.
It was one of the most important reforms in the VA health care system.
VERA is a system for distributing VA health care doctors equitably,
to ensure that veterans have similar access to care, regardless,
regardless of the region they live in. Before 1996, when Congress
directed VA to establish this system, veterans experienced enormous
disparity in access to care. Veterans who received all needed care from
VA facilities in New York, for example, found after retiring to Florida
the VA's doors were closed to them.
{time} 1715
This happened because a system for distributing funds did not take
into account the demographic changes that occurred.
According to the General Accounting Office, VA's former allocation
system not only resulted in unequal access to care, it also encouraged
inefficiency. GAO cited the need for a system like VERA. So my
colleagues, the GAO has studied this carefully, and they have cited the
need for such a system as VERA, which the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) would like to remove and dismantle. Price Waterhouse did an
analysis of this as well. They validated the methodology that was used
and indicated that it was sound. VERA recognizes that there is
variability in labor costs and other factors from region to region and
makes adjustments accordingly. It is fundamentally a fair system.
Mr. Chairman, that is not just me speaking. Price Waterhouse has
validated this system, and GAO cited the very legislation that we
passed overwhelmingly in the House.
So as I mentioned earlier, I have this letter from the VA's acting
Under Secretary of Health who confirms that the VERA system is working
and that the VA administration itself continues to support it, and I
will include that for the Record at this time.
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Veterans Health Administration,
Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to affirm the Veterans
Health Administration's (VHA) continued support for the
Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system.
Implemented in April 1997, the VERA methodology remains an
equitable model for distributing funds to the 22 networks.
During the past two and a half years independent reviews by
the General Accounting Office and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
have validated the VERA methodology as meeting the intent of
Congress. In fact, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP concluded that
VERA is ahead of other global health care funding system
around the world. In addition to these external VERA
assessments, since the beginning of VERA, the VHA has
established internal workgroups, comprising clinical and
administrative staff from both Headquarters and the Field, to
provide input to the VHA Policy Board for VERA refinement and
to evaluate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the VERA
methodology. Ongoing improvements and refinements to VERA
continue as issues arise. Refinements that have been
identified for the FY 2001 allocation are listed below.
Non-recurring Maintenance (NRM)--FY 2001 will complete the
three-year phase-in of NRM being fully based on patient care
workload and the cost of construction using the Boockh Index
(a geographically-based, nationwide standard).
Geographic Price Adjustment (labor index)--A change in the
workload factor for computing the labor index that would
weight Basic and Complex Care workload consistent with recent
costs is under review. A recommendation was presented to the
VHA Policy Board in May 2000 and was approved June 15, 2000.
Research Support--A decision to again pass through research
support funds directly to VA medical centers for FY 2001 will
be reviewed by the VHA Policy Board in July 2000. A decision
on these recommendations will be made subsequent to Policy
Board discussion well ahead of the time to allocate FY 2001
funding.
Care Across Networks--A Care Across Networks Workgroup
studied the need for a transfer pricing system to cover
veterans who receive care outside of their home networks
(e.g., northeast networks would reimburse southern networks
for the care provided to veterans who travel south in the
winter). The group recommended implementation of a default
pricing system based on Medicare rates, modification of the
current billing system, and preauthorization to ensure that
care provided is clinically appropriate. Because concerns
were expressed about the adequacy of the infrastructure to
handle transfer pricing and possible impediments imposed by
preauthorization, VA tested the proposed transfer pricing
system. The Workgroup considered several key issues: the
impact on improving coordination of care; whether the level
of effort to effect transfer pricing is worth the benefit;
and the technical and software challenges to implement. A
recommendation by the Workgroup not to go forward with
transfer pricing in FY 2001 was approved in March 2000. VA
will continue to use the existing pro-rated person (PRP)
concept to ensure that care across networks is compensated.
The default pricing system will be completed and made
available to networks that are trying to understand care
patterns as well as other issues.
Additionally, VHA Headquarters has maintained a national
reserve fund to assist networks that are experiencing fiscal
difficulties. VHA has established a process whereby a
network's request for additional funding is first reviewed by
a team of VHA field-based managers. The VISN's request and
the team's review are then presented to the VHA Policy Board,
which in turn makes recommendations to the Under Secretary
for Health. Once a final decision is made, the results are
communicated to the requesting VISN.
Enclosed is a chart with text to show that VERA is not
moving all networks to an average expenditure per patient,
but adjusts network allocations for differences in patient
mix, labor costs, research and education support costs,
equipment and non-recurring maintenance activities.
Please note that all major VERA shifts in funding have been
completed. Beginning with the FY 2001 VERA distribution to
the networks, changes in VISN funding will depend on the
following factors:
The change in the Medical Care Appropriation from one year
to the next,
Each VISN's change in the number and mix of veterans
provided care relative to the system-wide change in total
veteran patient workload, and
VERA refinements that may be made during the year.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on VERA.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Garthwaite, M.D.
Acting Under Secretary for Health.
Enclosure.
The chart that follows displays the average VERA price for
each network, based on the preliminary FY 2001 VERA
Allocation. (It should be noted that these are subject to
change; workload data continues to undergo data validation,
Specific Purpose funding continues to be reviewed, and final
decisions about funding levels are dependent on the
Congressional Appropriation.)
PROJECTED AVERAGE PRICE BY NETWORK-PRELIMINARY FY 2001 VERA ALLOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent variation
Network Average Price from national
average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
05 Baltimore....................... $5,673 17.74
21 San Francisco................... 5,543 15.04
12 Chicago......................... 5,440 12.90
03 Bronx........................... 5,375 11.56
20 Portland........................ 5,023 4.24
22 Long Beach...................... 4,978 3.31
02 Albany.......................... 4,970 3.14
11 Ann Arbor....................... 4,950 2.74
13 Minneapolis..................... 4,941 2.55
01 Boston.......................... 4,936 2.45
National Average................... 4,818 0.00
17 Dallas.......................... 4,783 (0.73)
07 Atlanta......................... 4,768 (1.05)
08 Bay Pines....................... 4,657 (3.34)
06 Durham.......................... 4,657 (3.36)
10 Cincinnati...................... 4,465 (3.60)
15 Kansas City..................... 4,539 (5.80)
19 Denver.......................... 4,539 (5.80)
14 Lincoln......................... 4538 (5.81)
09 Nashville....................... 4,471 (7.20)
16 Jackson......................... 4,452 (7.60)
18 Phoneix......................... 4,452 (7.91)
04 Pittsburgh...................... 4,433 (8.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chart shows that total VERA funding for networks is not
a simple national average rate, for example, in FY 2001 four
networks receive more than 10% above the national average
price.
Since its inception in FY 1997, VERA has been effective in
reducing the amount of variation between networks in average
cost per patient. In FY96, one network had a 33% variation
above the average; in FY99 that variation from average cost
per patient was reduced to 22%. At the other end of the
specturm. In FY96 there was a network that was 38% below the
national average cost per patient; in FY99 this variation had
been reduced, so the network with the lowest average cost per
patient was 22% below the national average. This has not been
an arbitrary movement toward a single national mean; some
networks above the national average have appropriately moved
even further above the national average due to complexity of
their patient population and other workload factors.
VERA has completed the shifting of dollars among network
based on workload, that began in FY 1997. When VERA wa
implemented, nearly $500M was identified by the VERA model as
needing to be shifted among
[[Page 11778]]
networks; in the FY 2001 allocation, there are no dollars to
remaining by be shifted. All networks are receiving increase
to their FY2000 VERA allocation.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, we have a similar debate on this amendment
last year when the gentleman offered it. I urge the gentleman not to
dismantle a system that is working for the veterans in this country. I
also note that the VA maintains a reserve fund to handle the kind of
problems that the gentleman has raised, and I am sure others will raise
from the northeast. In fact, the New York/New Jersey Network received
$60 million last year from that reserve fund that was set up just to
handle problems that they are going to get on the floor and talk about.
For those areas of the country that have legitimate funding problems,
there is this safety mechanism with the reserve fund. We need not and
should not, I say to my colleagues, take the extreme step that the
gentleman proposes. Adopting the Hinchey amendment would hurt veterans
all across this country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I would merely say that Congress enacted
VERA for a very simple reason: equity. No matter where they live or
what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve to have equal access
to quality health care.
The author of this amendment argues that the veterans in New York are
not being treated equitably. VERA takes all of that into consideration,
and under VERA, veterans in the metropolitan New York area will receive
an average of $5,339 per veteran patient. That is 16 percent-plus
higher than the national average. The Florida VISN will receive $4,485
per patient under VERA, an average payment that is 2.5 percent below
the national average. Certainly we should ask ourselves how is this
unfair to New York veterans.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment
which would prohibit the use of VA funds to further implement the
Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation system.
VERA, as it is called, corrects historic geographic imbalances in
funding for VA health care services and ensures equitable access to
care for all veterans.
Florida has the second largest veterans population in the country
with 1.7 million veterans. Approximately 100 veterans move to Florida
every day. Since coming to Congress, I have heard from veterans who
were denied care at Florida VA medical facilities. In many instances,
these veterans had been receiving care at their local VA medical
center. However, once they moved to Florida, the VA was forced to turn
them away because the facilities in our state simply did not have the
resources to meet the high demand for care.
This lack of adequate resources is further compounded in the winter
months when Florida veterans are literally crowded out of the system by
individuals who travel south to enjoy our warm weather.
It is hard for my veterans to understand how they can lose their VA
health care simply by moving to another part of the country or because
a veteran from a different state is using our VA facilities.
Congress enacted VERA for a very simple reason: equity. No matter
where they live or what circumstances they face, all veterans deserve
to have equal access to quality health care.
Since VERA's implementation, the Florida Veterans' Integrated Service
Network (VISN) has experienced a forty percent increase in its
workload. The Florida network estimates that it will treat a total of
300,000 veterans by the end of Fiscal Year 2000.
The Florida network has also opened 18 new community based outpatient
clinics since VERA's implementation. It plans to open additional
clinics in the near future. None of this could have happened without
VERA.
The author of this amendment argues that veterans in New York are not
being treated equitably. The VERA system already takes regional
differences into account by making adjustments for labor costs,
differences in patient mix and differing levels of support for research
and education.
According to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, VA facilities in
the metropolitan New York area will receive an average of $5,339 per
veteran patient. This means that these facilities will receive an
average payment for each patient that is 16.07 percent higher than the
national average. On the other hand, the Florida VISN will receive
$4,485 per patient--an average payment that is 2.5 percent below the
national average. How is this unfair to New York veterans?
VERA ensures that veterans across the country have equal access to VA
health care and that tax dollars are spent wisely. If the Hinchey
amendment passes, continued funding imbalances will result in unequal
access to VA health care for veterans in different parts of the
country.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that this is not a regional argument. The issue is bureaucratic
bungling by computer. If your area is not being hurt today, it most
certainly will be tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Hinchey-
Frelinghuysen amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
We want to suspend the VERA program. It is not working, and it is
certainly not working for New Jersey. We are the only VISN to lose
money. It is unacceptable to the veterans in New Jersey. It is
unacceptable to me.
According to this year's bill, our VISN will receive $22 million less
than we did in fiscal year 1999, and $14 million less than we did in
fiscal year 2000. In fact, when we consider the supplemental
appropriation, New Jersey will receive $52 million less than we
received for the entire fiscal year 2000.
This is not a question of making everybody happy, this is a question
of equity. The program is not working. What we are going to do is wedge
one veterans' group against the other. That is not acceptable to us in
New Jersey, and I am sure to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek)
and to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), it is not
acceptable to them as well.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for the
Hinchey, Frelinghuysen amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
The amendment is simple, it suspends the VERA program. What we need
to do is go back to the drawing board and come up with a program that
is fair to ALL veterans.
In Fiscal Year 2000, Congress provided $1.7 billion more for
veteran's medical care. Yet, in New Jersey we lost $36 million in
funding.
We were the only VISN to lose money. It is unacceptable to the
veterans of New Jersey. It is unacceptable to me.
According to this year's bill, our VISN will receive $22 million less
than we did in Fiscal Year 1999 and $14 million less than we did in
Fiscal Year 2000!
In fact, when we consider the supplemental appropriation we received
this year, New Jersey will receive $52 million less than we received
for the entirety of Fiscal Year 2000. This is a disgrace.
And that is because of VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource
Allocation program, which redirects money from some regions of the
country to pay for veterans who live in other parts of the country.
Our veterans deserve better.
The fact is that the VERA system is not equitable to all veterans.
This amendment sends the message that VERA is not working. The VA
should develop a truly equitable plan.
Members of the military have put themselves at great risk to protect
American interests around the world. In return for this service, the
federal government has made a commitment to both active duty and
retired military personnel to provide certain benefits.
Our veterans helped shaped the prosperity our nation currently
enjoys. It is OUR duty to ensure that commitments made to those who
served are kept.
The VERA system is simply not working.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman), the dean of the New York Congressional
Delegation.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in strong
support of the Hinchey-Frelinghuysen amendment prohibiting funds from
being used
[[Page 11779]]
to implement VERA, the Veterans Equity Resource Allocation system,
which was created to correct an inequity in the manner in which
veterans' health care funds were being distributed across the country.
While conceived as a sound effort, VERA was fundamentally flawed in
that it did not look at the quality of care being delivered to veterans
in any given region. Moreover, it also failed to consider the effect of
regional costs in providing health care.
Under VERA, the watchword was efficiency: deliver the most care at
the least cost. While ideal for outpatient care, VERA has unfairly
penalized those VISNs that provide vital services such as substance
abuse treatment, services for the homeless, veterans' mental health
services, and spinal cord injury treatments. Under VERA, those services
are all deemed too expensive and inefficient.
VERA was implemented at a time when the VA budget was essentially
flat lined. VISN directors were not provided additional funds to offset
the cost of annual pay raises for VA staff and annual medical inflation
costs.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)
has expired.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
This was not a problem for those directors of VISNs who received
money under VERA. However, for those directors of VISNs that were
losing money under VERA, it was a double hit that crowded out
additional funds needed for other vital services.
It is commendable that the subcommittee was able to find an
additional $1.3 billion for veterans' medical care. Yet, due to VERA,
very little of that money is going to find its way to the Northeast
where it is vitally needed. Instead, it will be sent to those VISNs
that have already seen increases.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Hinchey-
Frelinghuysen amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez).
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I very seldom come down here to remark on
some of these, and the reason is that most of us have made up our minds
already and nobody is going to convince us to change.
Let me give my colleagues some information. If my colleagues think
that reforms have been instituted recently in veterans' health
services, they are wrong. In L.A. they have caused nothing but
disruption. You have closed offices where people need the offices, and
in L.A. the transportation problem there is terrific. There are log
jams all the time. Veterans have a hard time, some of them unable to
drive, and especially those with mental services needs have a hard time
getting to the centers as it is now. So you close some. Then you close
administrative offices and move them to Phoenix, Arizona, when the
population is in L.A.
What is the matter with you in this reform. You need to open your
eyes and see that there is something very, very wrong with the reform.
In other words, the cure is worse than the illness, and veterans are
not getting the attention they need. I am sorry if my colleagues cannot
see that, but they ought to realize it; they ought to take a better
look. My colleagues ought to go back to their districts and talk to
their veterans and ask them if they are getting the services they need,
because they are not.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in strong
support of the Hinchey amendment. I think the bottom line that we have
heard from both sides, and there should not be any arguments here, is
that we are supposed to take care of our veterans. I have been out to
my VA hospital, and let me tell my colleagues, they have cut the budget
as far as they can go. Yes, a lot of my veterans do go to Florida. That
is where they are part of the time of the year. But they are still
using the services in my North Port hospital.
This should not be a fight among colleagues. We are supposed to take
care of our veterans. That is the bottom line. We have made promises to
our veterans. This should not even be a budget fight.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hinchey amendment; and we should
certainly, in the future, start allotting more money for our veterans
to take care of them. We, the government, made a promise to our
veterans: you serve this country and we will take care of you.
Well, I am embarrassed to say that the 3\1/2\ years that I have been
here, we have not kept that promise to our veterans; and as a nurse, I
can tell my colleagues, they know it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
In closing, I would just say to my colleagues that this is not a
regional issue, this is an issue that affects veterans coast to coast,
as we have seen in the arguments that have been presented here this
evening. If it happens that one's particular district or one's
particular State is not adversely affected at this particular moment,
it will be shortly.
Mr. Chairman, this formula has got to change. Please support the
amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hinchey amendment, which
would block the continued implementation of the VERA system, a change
which would cripple the VA. An identical amendment was offered last
year and failed on a vote of 158-266.
On April 1, 1997, the VA began to implement the VERA system, which
allocates health care resources according to numbers of veterans in
each of 22 regional VISNs (Veterans Integrated Service Networks). The
Hinchey amendment would jeopardize health care in a majority of VA
networks by blocking continued implementation of this system.
Before VERA, funds were allocated according to the historical usage
of VA facilities, adjusted annually for inflation. When veterans
migrated to the West and the South, funding continued to be
concentrated in the Northeast. The VERA system directly matches
workloads with annual allocations, taking into account numbers of basic
and special care veterans, national price and wage differences, and
education and equipment differences. More efficient networks have more
funds available for local initiatives and less efficient networks have
an incentive to improve. Some regions do see a substantial change in
their health care allocations under VERA, but all VA network
administrators agree that this reform is crucial to the sustainability
of VA programs.
The amendment proposes to prohibit funding for the VERA allocation
model, creating a significant question about what model the VA would
use instead. Presumably, the authors of the amendment would support a
return to the allocations of FY96. When FY00 levels are compared to FY
96 allocations, such an adjustment would mean that 20 of 22 VISNs would
lose money.
Some areas would be particularly devastated by such a reallocation:
the Pacific Northwest would be cut 24 percent, the Southeast would be
cut 14 percent, the Southwest would be cut 15 percent. To restore
funding for these 2 VISNs at FY96 levels, all 20 other VISNs would take
an approximate hit totaling $132 million. If VA was forced to recompute
allocations according to the old model, the cuts would be even more
severe. The two VA medical centers I represent would see their budget
cut by more than $9 million this year if we restored the old formula.
Such a budget hit would cripple the vast majority of VISNs across the
country. VERA is working--of the 22 VISNs, only ONE, in the Bronx, saw
its overall allocation decrease from FY99 to FY00. I believe that we
should encourage the VA to continue moving forward with this successful
initiative. Please join me in opposing the Hinchey Amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, we in Florida, we have visual acuity, I want to let my
colleagues know. We can see, and when we see, we can read these
numbers, Mr. Chairman. We have the numbers. There is no question about
it, we all want veterans served. But should we yield because we have to
satisfy one part of
[[Page 11780]]
the Nation? We have to satisfy all of the veterans.
Vote against the Hinchey amendment.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey
Amendment to suspend the Department of Veterans' Affairs misguided
Veterans' Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) plan.
The VERA plan takes scarce resources away from the veterans in my
district and other areas of the Northeast based on flawed data about
veteran populations around the country.
The veterans who use the VA health care system in New York deserve
better than the VERA plan gives them. Each year, about 150,000 veterans
use the eight VA facilities in the New York Metropolitan region. These
veterans have come to rely on the excellent services provided by these
facilities, and the cuts in these services under VERA have been
disastrous.
Since the implementation of VERA began, I have received reports from
many veterans in my district of diminished quality of care at VA
medical centers. In fact, the VA's own Office of the Medical Inspector
investigated the Hudson Valley VA hospitals and found more than 150
violations of health and safety rules at those hospitals alone. It is
not a coincidence that these violations came at a time when these
hospitals were trying to cut costs to comply with VERA.
And the situation is getting worse. The service network that serves
New York and New Jersey will receive a cut of over $40 million. This
means the quality of care will suffer and more services will be cut as
hospitals and clinics face even more reductions in force. All of our
veterans, regardless of where they live, deserve better.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the need to provide services to growing
veterans populations in other regions of the country, but that must not
be done at the expense of New York's veterans. An assessment of the
VERA plan by Price Waterhouse highlighted a major flaw in the
fundamental assumptions of the plan. The report stated that ``basing
resource allocation on patient volume is only an interim solution
because patient volume indicates which veterans the VHA (Veterans
Health Administration) is serving, not which veterans have the highest
care needs.'' This is especially relevant to the New York region, which
has the highest proportion of specialty care veterans in the country.
We cannot turn our backs on our proud veterans, but that is exactly
what will happen if we allow VERA to continue. I urge my colleagues to
treat our veterans with the dignity and the respect they deserve.
Support the Hinchey Amendment.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the
Hinchey amendment.
Under the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation plan, I have
witnessed the results of cuts that have effectively removed nearly $300
million from the lower New York area veterans network.
VERA is fundamentally flawed. These flaws permeate VERA's
methodology, its implementation, and the VA's oversight of this new
spending plan.
Our veteran's network has the oldest veterans population, the highest
number of veterans with spinal cord injuries, the highest number of
veterans suffering from mental illness, the highest incidence of
hepatitis C in its veterans population, and the highest number of
homeless veterans. It is inconceivable and intolerable that the VA
would continually reduce our regions funding.
VISN 3 has required reserve funding for the last 3 years because our
veterans hospitals keep running out of money. In this fiscal year, VISN
3 required $102 million in reserve funding. In the next fiscal year it
expects to request even more. When will we realize that the VA should
fund our hospitals properly the first time and leave reserve funds for
emergencies?
I beseech my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment and make the investment in our veterans hospitals necessary
to keep our promise to our veterans. The veterans of this Nation gave
their best for us. Now we need to do our best for them.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment. My home state of Florida has 1.7 million veterans and serves
as home to thousands more during the busy winter season. Given the age
and special needs to this population, many of these men and women
require extensive medical attention.
The lack of timely, quality health care for our veterans has reached
a crisis point across the country, but the problem is particularly
acute in southwest Florida. Every year more and more veterans flock to
Florida to enjoy their golden years; and every year the veteran clinics
and hospitals in my state are hard pressed to meet the demand. Sadly,
the need far exceeds our resources in southwest Florida. Veterans
routinely wait months--and sometimes over a year--just to get an
appointment for something as simple as vision and hearing care. This is
an unacceptable way to treat those who served our country honorably.
VERA begins to address this injustice by allocating funds according
to the number of veterans having the highest priority for health care.
VERA is a fair and just system: it puts the money where the vets are.
This is straightforward, commonsense policy. I urge my colleagues to
reject the Hinchey amendment and support a fair and equitable policy of
providing for our veterans.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Frelinghuysen/
Hinchey amendment to prohibit the VA from distributing health care
funds through the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA)
formula.
As I have said many times in the past, VERA has negatively impacted
the VA's ability to meet the health care needs of veterans in the
Northeast.
I understand that VERA has benefitted certain regions of the country,
but the level of care in those regions has been raised at the expense
of Northeast veterans. The situation continues to get worse, not better
for the 150,000 veterans in Maine.
Veterans in my district rely on Togus VA hospital in Augusta. Those
veterans who are treated at Togus cannot say enough about the quality
of care. There is no question about it, if you can get in to see a
doctor, the care is exceptional.
The Doctors and nurses have dedicated their careers and lives to
serving this population and recognize the unique care veterans need.
But Mr. Chairman, Togus is located within VISN1. Despite this bill's
$1.35 billion increase in the fiscal year 2001 VA health care budget,
VISN 1 will only receive a $15 million increase.
Togus alone already has a $9 million shortfall in Fiscal Year 2000.
There is clearly a need for increased funding, and yet VISN 1 is one of
only two VISNs that has lost funding since 1996 when VERA was
implemented.
While the quality of medical care remains high, budget constraints
have forced Togus to reduce staff, causing severe strains on access to
care, as well as staff morale.
The excessive waiting time makes it difficult to enroll new patients.
Because funding increases through VERA are tied to the number of
patients seen, veterans in the Northeast regions are put at an
automatic disadvantage.
I am told over and over by the VA Undersecretary for Health, Dr.
Thomas Garthwaite, that the VERA numbers work out. I am told that each
VISN receives the appropriate amount of money to cover its costs.
Mr. Chairman, the numbers are not working out. The former Acting
Director of VISN 1 recently said that over the past few years equipment
and construction funds were used to supplement funds for direct medical
care.
VERA simply does not provide the means to cover the facility costs of
hospitals in the Northeast and still provide quality care.
Recently, two Boston VA hospitals, West Roxbury and Jamaica Plain,
began to consolidate their operations. However, there is no money to
complete this kind of transition without affecting the care to
veterans.
Because Boston serves as the major surgical center for the VISN, the
patient population of the whole region is going to suffer. The VISN
does not have the $40 million required to complete this process
smoothly.
The cost of providing health care in aging facilities is not
adequately accounted for in VERA. The formula must be reexamined.
I am tired of hearing, ``the numbers work out.'' Anyone who visits
Togus, or any hospital in the Northeast will clearly see that it is not
working out for those veterans seeking care.
There is simply no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for the hurdles our veterans
must now face to access high quality health care. We need to make a
greater commitment to funding veterans' health programs and we must
find a new and better way to direct those resources to those in need.
This Congress' fixation on hugh tax cuts for the wealthy is
endangering funding for veterans programs, for housing and for other
domestic programs.
We must get our priorities straight, and keep our promise to the
veterans in this country. Support the Frelinghuysen/Hinchey amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment to change the VERA formula and return to an obsolete methods
of allocating veterans funding in this nation.
[[Page 11781]]
VERA, the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system is one of the
smartest, fairest, and simplest things we've done at VA.
What we did with VERA is very straight forward. We discovered that a
lot of our older veterans are moving from places up North like
Pennsylvania and Ohio and moving to warmer spots like Florida and
Arizona. In my own district and in my home state of Florida we have
seen an explosive growth in the number of senior citizen veterans
living in our communities who requires resources. While in some
Northern states we have VA hospitals that used to serve a lot of
veterans 20 years ago that are now abandoned because of declining
veterans populations in those areas. The demographic evidence is very
clear.
So Congress decided to put VERA in place to more equitably distribute
VA health care dollars so that the money goes to where the veterans
actually are and not where the abandoned buildings are. This
``radical'' concept is fair and it's working, so I guess if you're a
little cynical of Washington, it's no wonder that some people want to
get rid of it now.
VERA has meant a marked improvement for our veterans in Florida.
Working closely on the 2000 Census I recognize that VERA is just one
part of the larger issue of re-allocating federal resources based on
our nation's changing demographics. For instance, my district and state
have similar issues with all senior citizens relating to the Older
Americans Act which also attempts to shift some federal funding based
on changing demographic patterns.
Just as Florida and Texas and some other growing states may gain
Congressional seats in re-apportionment while some states lose seats
because of population changes, so too must veterans funding follow the
population. I know it's hard for my colleagues on the other side of
this issue to see federal funds or Congressional seats go elsewhere and
I don't begrudge them for fighting for the amendment, but VERA is
fundamentally fair and it's the right thing to do.
VERA also helps force VA to cut waste and inefficiency. The
Government Accounting Office (GAO), Congress' non-partisan
investigative agency, recently reported that VA is wasting almost $1
million per day maintaining and heating empty obsolete VA facilities,
$1 MILLION PER DAY, almost all of it in the Northeast and Midwest. GAO
also reported that there are over 30 obsolete VA hospitals with only
20-40 patients.
Mr. Chairman, we're moving to a period of completely different health
care needs for our aging veterans population, away from the 1950's
hospital system and to a system of outpatient care and long term
nursing home care. The number of veterans being treated in hospitals
has gone down 60% while the outpatient visits have skyrocketed. VERA
helps get us there by shutting down obsolete hospital facilities and
freeing up those resources to build clinics that are closer and more
accessible to veterans and pay for the doctors and pharmacists to staff
those clinics.
Mr. Chairman, keeping money locked up in obsolete facilities, serving
needs that don't exist for a population that has moved elsewhere is
wrong. I urge my colleagues to keep VERA intact and, vote against this
harmful amendment.
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor
of this amendment.
The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation is anything but what its
name indicates. VERA is not equitable. In fact, it has had a disastrous
effect on veteran health care in New Jersey.
VERA was intended to direct VA health resources to the areas with the
highest veteran population. However, the VERA equation fails to
calculate the level of care required by the patients.
Well intended? Yes. Well thought-out? Not in the slightest, Mr.
Chairman.
VISN 3, of which my district is a part, has the second oldest veteran
population in the country. Clearly, these veterans have the greatest
need for medical care and pay the highest health care costs of all
veterans. Without this amendment, they will suffer across the board
cuts in all of their programs.
While I appreciate the fact that after years of shortchanging
veterans' health services, the President has finally proposed a budget
that increases funding for veteran's health care. However, that
increase will provide no additional benefits to the veterans in my
state.
Mr. Chairman, it's time to end the inequity. Not only is the level of
support provided to New Jersey veterans unfair, it is jeopardizing
their health care. Lyons Medical Center has closed its emergency room.
East Orange VA hospital has closed its pharmacy. There have been round
after round of RIFs in New York and New Jersey's veteran hospitals.
VERA is a failure! I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Send the VA back to the drawing board and tell them to come up with a
system that meets the needs of ALL veterans. Our veterans deserve no
less.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by my colleague from New York, which would impose
a one-year moratorium on the VA's implementation of the ``Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation.'' VERA, as this funding mechanism is
known, was instituted in 1997 as a way to distribute VA resources
fairly across the country. But the outcomes since then have not been
equitable.
The VERA formula punishes regions like the Northeast and Midwest by
calculating need solely on the basis of the number of veterans served--
without any regard for the type of individualized or specialized care
given to these patients. Veterans in the New York/New Jersey area
(which makes up Veterans Integrated Service Network or VISN 3 in my
district) for example, are older than former service men and women in
other parts of the country. Because age is usually accompanied by more
severe health problems, these veterans often require more extensive--
and therefore more expensive--care than veterans elsewhere.
In addition, New York/New Jersey veterans have a higher-than-average
incidence rate of Hepatitis C (HCV) and AIDS, which we all know are
very costly treatments. As the VA continues to make HCV diagnosis and
treatment a priority--which it should--the costs associated with these
procedures will rise. A March, 1999 one-day prevalence study found that
six percent of veterans who were tested for Hepatitis C tested
positive; in VISN 3 that number was 13 percent--almost double the
national rate. And the going rate for one Hepatitis C treatment cycle,
for one patient, is between $15,000 and $20,000. Yet the VERA formula
does not factor this treatment cost into its allocation.
Finally, with the migration of veterans to the Sunbelt, those
remaining in regions like the Northeast and Midwest often lack the
money, if not physical condition, to move to a warmer climate. VERA
should not penalize these neediest of veterans for remaining where they
are.
Mr. Chairman, the VERA issue is more than just abstract numbers and
percentages on paper. For regions like VISN 3, the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation formula has not been equitable, and it has resulted
in serious delays in health care delivery for area veterans. It has
also forced these veterans to live under the fear that crucial
specialty services offered by facilities like the VA clinic in Brick,
New Jersey--located in my district--could be slashed. This nearly
happened two years ago, when the VA responded to VERA-imposed budget
cuts by seeking to close the clinic. I am still grateful for the
efforts of Monmouth and Ocean County veterans who fought side by side
with me to keep the facility open. If the Brick clinic were unable to
provide rheumatology, podiatry, and a range of other services, these
veterans would have had to take much longer drives for desperately
needed treatment.
As the vice chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have
questioned VA officials about the VERA system, and the explanations I
have received are not satisfactory. The solution is to adopt the
Hinchey amendment and force the VA to halt the VERA formula, so that we
can measure the full impact of this questionable system on veterans
nationwide.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment. This amendment will stop implementation of VERA,
the VA's allocation formula, and send it back to the drawing board so
the VA can create a funding formula that is fair to every veteran in
every state.
vera is unfair
VERA unfairly pits veteran against veteran for the desperately needed
health care services depending on which state they live in. Under VERA,
even with the historic $1.7 billion for veterans' health care provided
last year, VISN 3, which encompasses New Jersey and New York was cut by
$33 million.
Let me give you another example of how unfair VERA truly is. VISN 3
has the second highest rate of Hepatitis C in the nation. But because
of VERA, our veterans will not receive any money to combat the disease.
How is this fair? How is this equitable? New Jersey has one of the
oldest veterans' populations and the highest number of special needs
veterans. The funding reduction caused by VERA is taking a tragic toll
on the veterans of New Jersey and the Northeast.
health services in new jersey are being reduced
To save money, the VA has cut back on numerous services for veterans
and instituted various managed care procedures that have the impact of
destroying the quality of care the veterans receive. For instance, the
VA has reduced the amount of treatment offered to
[[Page 11782]]
those who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and reduced
the number of medical personnel at various health centers.
As a result of these cuts, there has been erosion of confidence
between veterans and the VA. I can not describe the anger and pain I
see in the faces of veterans in my district because of the reduction in
health services. This erosion threatens to destroy the solemn
commitment that this nation made to its veterans when they were called
to duty.
We can not allow the VA to use VERA to save money by destroying the
health care of veterans in New Jersey. We can not allow the VA to use
VERA to use managed care to reduce quality. And we can not allow the VA
to use VERA to close veterans' hospitals just because they are within
sixty miles of each other.
conclusion
The bottom line is: VERA is unacceptable and must change to a fairer
more equitable system.
Let me state as firm as possible: There can be no compromise when it
comes to veterans' health care. The promise made to veterans must be
kept. We must do everything in our power to ensure that veterans
receive the best health care possible.
Defending the Constitution of the United States on foreign soil is
the greatest duty the nation can ask of its citizens. Our veterans
answered the call to duty and performed it to the highest standard. We
must keep our promise to our veterans regardless if they live in
Florida, Texas, Maine or New Jersey. I believe a veteran is a veteran,
period. The VA must have the same view. I strongly urge you to support
this important amendment. Thank you.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
this amendment. I understand the goal of VERA is to distribute money
according to the number of veterans using veterans facilities, but it
doesn't take into consideration the basic overhead expenses of
operating medical care facilities in rural, less populated states.
Despite the fact that Congress has fully funded the President's
request for the VA next year, at least four VISNs are projecting
serious shortfalls. One of these VISNs, VISN 14, which includes Iowa
and my home state of Nebraska, is projecting a $40-40 million
shortfall.
Although Congress has increased the VA's budget 23.5 percent since
Fiscal Year 1996, VISN 14 has only received a 6.2 percent increase--
less than the cost of medical inflation. These shortfalls will continue
until we are able to find a fairer way to allocate funds.
I believe VISN 14 has taken significant steps to lower costs--in
fact, despite the increase in patient load of 26 percent, VISN 14 has
closed two inpatient facilities and the number of full time employees
has dropped 16 percent. Unfortunately, these changes will not save
enough to make up for the large projected shortfall.
Mr. Chairman, when the VA closed the Grand Island inpatient wards, I
was assured that the VA would use the money saved to improve services
to Nebraska's veterans, but the opposite has been true--services have
gotten worse. Many veterans in my district are forced to travel
hundreds of miles to receive the care they were promised. Veterans
often wait weeks or even months for appointments to see VA doctors.
This is unacceptable. Eligible veterans should have reasonable access
to VA facilities no matter where they live.
I urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey to basically gut the present veterans'
medical fund allocation system Congress established a little over three
years ago. The reason we established the so-called VERA or Veterans
Equitable Resource Allocation was to correct the arbitrary funding for
veterans' medical care in various parts of the United States. As the
name says, it is about equitable resource allocation--it is about
fairness and putting and the health care money where the veterans are.
My veterans in Alabama deserve the same adjusted basic per capital
funding as any other part of this country, not more and certainly not
less. I don't know how anyone could object to that.
But here's what we should object to: having unneeded VA hospitals in
a number of large metropolitan areas, including New York and Chicago.
Hearings by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, which I
chair, established that the VA is wasting more than a million dollars a
day by operating unneeded buildings and facilities. Personally, I think
that number is underestimated,. but that is what the General Accounting
Office reported, and the VA did not deny it.
Any way you look at it, a million dollars a day is a lot of waste. We
shouldn't be supporting waste by sending extra money to certain areas
to support unneeded VA facilities. That's what this amendment would do.
We should be encouraging the efficient expenditure of veterans' health
care dollars. Taxpayers want the men and women who have served their
country in uniform to have quality health care, and they want Congress
to take care that their money is well spent.
Mr. Chairman, a vote for this amendment is a vote for waste of
veterans' health care money, pure and simple. It would be a step
backward that would hurt most veterans by virtue of where they live. I
urge my colleagues to do right for both veterans and taxpayers by
defeating it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Page 90, after line 16, insert:
Sec. 426. Any limitation in this Act on funds made
available in this Act for the Environmental Protection Agency
shall not apply to--
(1) the use of dredging or other invasive sediment
remediation technologies;
(2) enforcing drinking water standards for arsenic; or
(3) promulgation of a drinking water standard for radon
where such activities are authorized by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Modification to Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
amendment in accordance with the submission that is at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
The amendment as modified is as follows:
Page 90, after line 16, insert:
Sec. 426. Any limitation in this Act on funds made
available in this Act for the Environmental Protection Agency
shall not apply to:
(1) the use of dredging or other invasive sediment
remediation technologies; or
(2) enforcing drinking water standards for arsenic
where such activities are authorized by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to strike from the
bill language which is antienvironmental in its intention. It is a
rider which is contrary to environmental protection, which I believe
has been inappropriately placed in the bill.
First of all, this language would make it impossible for the EPA to
conduct activities which are designed to find out what exactly exists
in certain areas that are contaminated, in river, lakes, streams and
the oceans in and adjacent to the country.
{time} 1730
The importance of this is simply to discover what threat these
sediments pose. In many instances, these sediments are cancer-causing
agents such as polychlorinated biphenyls, heavy metals, and other
agents.
The intention of the amendment is to make it impossible for the EPA
to proceed with its program to remediate these bodies of water, I
believe, which are in dire need of that remediation. In some cases,
this situation has been carried on for decades.
So the purpose of the amendment is to strike that language, and also
to
[[Page 11783]]
strike language which involves the issue of arsenic in drinking water.
This language would prevent the EPA from establishing standards with
regard to arsenic in drinking water.
I need not point out to the Members of the House that arsenic is
indeed a particularly vitriolic poison. In fact, it occurs in many
water bodies and public water supplies in a number of places around the
country. So the EPA, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect
public health, the EPA is establishing these standards in order to
protect the environment, but even more particularly, in order to
protect public health.
This language prevents us from dredging and from finding out what is
in the bottom of water bodies around the country and taking appropriate
remedial action. It also prevents us from establishing standards with
regard to arsenic in drinking water.
I ask the majority of the Members of the House to join me in striking
this anti-environmental rider from this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say that this is an amendment
that does not do what the author would like it to do. Very simply, the
author would like to strike language contained in the committee report,
not in the bill but in the report, dealing with direction to the EPA on
dredging and in enforcing certain arsenic regulations.
Although he and others will allege that this language somehow reaches
in and cancels report language, certainly no reasonable interpretation
would come to that conclusion. Specifically, the language refers to
limitations in this Act on funds made available in this Act.
I would say to the gentleman that there is no limitation in the Act
on any of the above-mentioned issues. There is in particular no
limitation of funds in the Act on any of these issues. Moreover, there
is not even a limitation of funds on either of the issues contained in
the report language.
Despite the author's best intentions to somehow link what he would
hope to accomplish with this language, it plainly and simply cannot and
does not do what he would like it to do.
I would like to shift now from a technical interpretation of the
amendment to specific comments on the issues that the gentleman objects
to. I will confine my comments to the issue of dredging.
This is a very controversial issue. The EPA itself, up until just
recently, had rejected the option of dredging because of the resultant
pollution downstream from the dredging site. As we all know, when we
stir up mud in the river, it travels down the current. When there are
toxins in the mud in the river, they travel with the current, so other
parts of these rivers would be affected as that dredging began to
occur.
The EPA was opposed to dredging for many, many years. Now there has
been a change of heart and they want to proceed. Mr. Chairman, we all
agree that the toxins that are in our bodies of water need to be dealt
with. They need to be dealt with in the safest, most effective ways. We
do not want our fish and our wildlife and our vegetative growth and our
fellow human beings poisoned by these toxins.
But there is much to sit and debate about the best way to deal with
this. What the report language in this bill suggests is that the
National Academy of Sciences will come out with a study sometime in
September. At that point, the EPA will receive some direction in their
decision-making from the National Academy of Sciences report, and they
will then incorporate that into their operating plan.
Once they have accomplished that, they can proceed, so we want them
to get the benefit of the good science and then incorporate that into
their plan, and make a good decision and go forward.
I would just state lastly that this is the last time that this issue
will be dealt with in this bill because the body of knowledge will be
available for informed decision-making by the end of this year, so this
is the last time we will deal with this in this bill.
I would urge rejection of this amendment. Let us make sure we have
good science before we proceed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Hinchey-Brown-Waxman amendment.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment,
which has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, I am very
concerned about the report language of the Committee on Appropriations
with respect to arsenic.
The committee report language essentially tells the EPA not to
enforce current law regarding arsenic. The current standard of 50 parts
per billion was established in 1975 based on a public health standard
originally established in 1942. However, arsenic is now understood to
be much more toxic than we thought it was even 10 years ago.
In addition to more evidence on skin cancer, sufficient evidence has
been found to link arsenic to fatal lung and bladder cancers and to
other organ cancers. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen.
The EPA is in the process of revising the arsenic drinking water
standard to be more stringent, but the new standard will not go into
effect until 2004 at the earliest. It would be irresponsible for
Congress to instruct the EPA to ignore cases in which drinking water
supplies do not even achieve the current standards of 50 parts per
billion.
This appropriations rider makes a significant change in national
policy on drinking water, but the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment, which successfully reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water
Act just 4 years ago, has not been given the opportunity to review it,
nor have any bills introduced in this Congress on arsenic in drinking
water.
This anti-environment rider in the report is bad procedure and bad
policy. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and good
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
would like us to believe that dredging over 1 million tons of sediment
from the Hudson River, disrupting the recovering ecosystem, releasing
PCBs downstream, shutting off recreational use of the river, and
landfilling 85,000 truckloads of dredge material on dairy farms in the
Upper Hudson region is somehow the only reasonable action to be taken
in the best interests of New Yorkers in order to remediate the Hudson
River.
I would advise the gentleman that neither he nor the EPA should feel
it necessary nor appropriate to lecture our residents on what is best
for their communities. I do not believe we should let politics dictate
our efforts to remediate the Hudson River. Simply put, I want to see
science and facts applied here.
Mr. Chairman, the public has lost confidence in the EPA and in this
endeavor. As the chairman mentions, it has gone on way too long. I have
brought a couple of charts that will exemplify what we are talking
about here.
In the first chart here, the level of 10 exists. These are the past
dredging experiences that the EPA has conducted. In each of the
dredging experiences they have conducted the level of 10, which is now
what the upper Hudson River level is, has been met in their most
successful operations, meaning that if they dredge now they will have
to realize unprecedented successes.
The second chart, using EPA science, shows the three ways, the
natural recovery, the source control natural recovery, the source
control dredging recovery, in terms of remediation of the river. If we
look at those lines, we will
[[Page 11784]]
notice that there is barely a distinction in terms of the kind of
recovery.
The EPA has lied to the citizens in the upper Hudson valley. They
began a covert study to look at landfilling those dredge materials.
They have lost the confidence of those people in that area.
As the chairman pointed out, the National Academy of Sciences report
due out in September needs to be incorporated in so that we have the
public confidence regained in this endeavor. I urge a no vote, a strong
no vote in this effort.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me. I strongly rise in support of the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the concern I have is that we are seeking knowledge and
seeking better ways to do clean-ups with the National Academy studies.
On the other hand, we have existing technologies and we have problems
that are endangering people's health today.
I think we ought to use the knowledge and technology that is
available today to help our fellow citizens in cleaning up these
waterways while we continue to seek better ways to do so. I am very
concerned about the potential delay.
I have a similar situation in my own district that has been studied
for 24 years. One of the elements we have incorporated in the project
cooperative agreement is a review every 5 years so we can incorporate
new technologies as they come online, but I think it would be a mistake
today to delay improvements in cleaning up our waterways that today
endanger people's health.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the remaining time to close.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
my friend, the gentleman from New York.
Here we go again. The EPA is rushing to implement a new arsenic
standard in the water with very little justifiable new scientific
evidence. They will tell us that the new, more stringent standards of
our communities will be at risk, and therefore we must plow ahead.
No one on this floor wants anyone's drinking water to be unsafe. I,
for one, am not condemning the EPA for setting scientific safe and
reasonable drinking water standards. But there is a consequence to
these authoritative actions.
I oppose the EPA requiring small, rural community water districts to
spend $10 million to $20 million to comply with the current arsenic
standards when the EPA is going to mandate an entirely new and more
stringent standard in January of 2001. This tactic is simply going to
force small rural water districts to unnecessarily spend millions of
taxpayer dollars to build a new water treatment facility to comply with
current standards, and then 6 months later spend an additional $10
million to $20 million to build an entirely new facility to comply with
the new EPA standards.
If the EPA, Mr. Chairman, has its ways, these small communities will
spend up to $35 million to comply with two separate standards. Would it
not make sense for communities to build one safe and adequate facility
that seeks to comply with the new more stringent standard, rather than
6 months down the road spending an additional $20 million?
This situation occurs throughout my State, it occurs throughout a
number of other States. I am sure that there are many communities
around who are concerned, whether they are small or large, with the
attempt to have to comply with the current existing arsenic standards,
facing the new future standards as well.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a wrongheaded tactic. Why
should any community, large or small, be forced to spend that extra $1
million? I stand here, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to this amendment.
We should oppose the Hinchey amendment because it is unnecessary. This
is a commonsense report language, and in no way ties the hands of the
EPA. It merely allows communities to concentrate on meeting one arsenic
standard, build one water treatment facility, and save rural water
districts millions of dollars in unneeded and duplicative and costly
regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to oppose the Hinchey
amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Hinchey amendment and against the rider prohibiting the EPA from
cleaning up contaminated sediments in our waters.
This language is simply a delay tactic to protect those who have
polluted our waterways and do not want to incur the expense of cleaning
them up. Many of our rivers and lakes are still polluted from years and
years of toxic chemicals being released into them. The people of New
York have been waiting for decades. We are not plowing ahead, we have
been waiting for decades for the EPA to begin the process of cleaning
up the PCB-polluted Hudson River.
Now, as the EPA is on the cusp of beginning the clean-up, this
provision was included in this bill to stall the EPA yet again. While I
agree that we should make all efforts to ensure that any environmental
remediation activities are as safe as possible, I do not believe that
this is the case here.
{time} 1745
Quite frankly, this language is meant to delay action on cleaning up
the Hudson River by making it more difficult for the EPA to take
actions in defense of the environment. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of the amendment and in favor of finally moving to clean up our
waterways.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and
commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and Representative
Brown for their leadership on this important issue.
Once again, we are confronted with a VA-HUD appropriations bill and
report that contains damaging and mind-boggling antienvironmental
riders.
There are two contenders for this year's winner in the category of
the most outrageous and ludicrous antienvironmental riders. The nominee
is the language that actually makes it more difficult to clean up PCB,
and it is competing against an equally nonsensical provision that would
make it more difficult for EPA to keep arsenic out of drinking water.
I really am quite mystified at the fact that we are in the middle of
an election year; and 2 weeks ago, the Republicans bring to the House
floor a tax break of $20 billion for 400 families. The next week they
come in with a bill that cuts the funding for nursing home inspections.
Then tomorrow we are going to have to fight whether we are going to
continue a lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Now they want arsenic
in our drinking water. What constituents are they appealing to?
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment).
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Hinchey amendment and
express my opposition to the antienvironment provisions contained in
the bill and its report. It seems as though we go down this road every
year fighting riders and report language designed specifically to stop
the Environment Protection Agency from advancing the protection of
human health and the environment.
Just a few short weeks ago, the majority claimed to have adopted a
policy of no antienvironmental riders in appropriations bills.
Unfortunately for human health and the environment, this is not the
case. Instead, the majority has determined to place antienvironmental
provisions in the committee report. This amendment is necessary to undo
that harm.
[[Page 11785]]
Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned that the report
accompanying this bill would prohibit EPA from removing contaminating
sediments from rivers and lakes, even when such removal has been
thoroughly studied and is the correct response. Contaminated sediments
possess huge risks to health and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, we all know there are two sites that drive this issue
every year which are both heavily contaminated with PCBs.
This broad language will stop or delay cleanups not only at these two
sites, but also at 26 other sites in 15 States. It is time to stop
interfering with EPA protecting human health and the environment.
Support the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record:
June 19, 2000.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the organizations listed
below, we are writing to you in strong opposition to an anti-
environmental rider on the FY2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill
regarding the Clean Water Act's TMDL program, which may go to
the House floor as early as today. Our organizations have
consistently opposed all anti-environmental riders, and we
urge you to oppose this and other such anti-environmental
riders on appropriations bills this year.
The section of the VA-HUD Sub-Committee report, under EPA-
Environmental Programs and Management, attempts to use a
rider to interfere with EPA's rulemaking process and guidance
on the Clean Water Act. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are
part of the Clean Water Act's strategy for attaining and
maintaining water quality standards in polluted waters. They
require that states identify all sources of pollution that
impair the uses of waterbodies, such as drinking, swimming or
aquatic habitat. Once identified, the TMDL process is a way
to ensure that responsibility for reducing pollution is
fairly allocated. The conservation community considers this
rider an attack on a key opportunity under the Clean Water
Act to clean up our nation's waterways. Furthermore, we have
serious concerns about Congress' interference with the
rulemaking process with a rider.
Moreover, Committee report language encourages EPA to
revoke a clean Water Act guidance document issued by the
agency's Region IX related in part to the TMDL program that
is deemed by the Committee to be too ``stringent'' for the
business community. The Committee's intervention on behalf of
polluters and the States to prevent a strong TMDL program by
discouraging regional offices from adopting guidance to
implement the law is an anti-environmental attack on the
Clean Water Act. The Region IX guidance at issue is a
clarification of long-standing Clean Water Act legal
requirements.
The provision of the proposed TMDL rule which has generated
the most controversy is the silviculture provision. In
response to industry and congressional concerns, the U.S. EPA
last week announced that the TMDL rule that is expected to be
finalized this summer will not include this provision.
We believe the TMDL program of the Clean Water Act offers
the best opportunity to clean up our nation's polluted waters
comprehensively and equitably. We urge you to uphold the
interests of the Clean Water Act and the value of the TMDL
program by opposing this rider.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth McEvoy, Center for Marine Conservation; Daniel
Rosenberg, Natural Resources Defense Council; Ted
Morton, American Oceans Campaign; Paul Schwartz, Clean
Water Action; Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited; James S.
Lyon, National Wildlife Federation; Rick Parrish,
Southern Environmental Law Center; Nina Bell, Northwest
Environmental Advocates; Ann Mills, American Rivers;
David Anderson, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Jackie
Savitz, Coast Alliance; Barry Carter, Blue Mountain
Native Forest Alliance; Norma Grier, NW Coalition for
Alts to Pesticides; Daniel Hall, American Lands; Jim
Rogers, Friends of Elk River; Bruce Wishart, People for
Puget Sound; Jennifer Schemm, Grand Ronde Resource
Council; Ric Bailey, Hells Canyon Preservation Council;
Steve Huddleston, Central Oregon Forest Issues
Committee; Mary Scurlock, Pacific Rivers Council; Mick
Garvin, Many Rivers Group, Sierra Club; Francis
Eatherington, Umpqua Watersheds, Inc.; James Johnston,
Cascadia Wildlands Project; Hillary Abraham, Oregon
Environmental Council; Asante Riverwind, Blue Mountains
Biodiversity Project; Karen Beesley, Nurse
Practitioner; Mettie Whipple, Eel River Watershed
Association, Ltd.; John Kart, Audubon Society of
Portland; Bill Marlett, Oregon Natural Desert
Association; Mr. Benson, Association of Northwest
Steelheaders; Elizabeth E. Stokey, Organization for the
Assabet River; Maria Van Dusen, Massachusetts Riverways
Program; Pepper Trail, Rogue Valley Audubon Society;
Glen Spain, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations; Ed Himlan, Massachusetts Watershed
Coalition; Pine duBois, Jones River Watershed
Association; Michael Toomey, Friends of Douglas State
Forest; Ellen Mass, Friends of Alewife Reservation.
____
Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2000.
Re: Municipalities Support EPA's Revised TMDL Program.
Hon. Robert A. Borski,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Borski: In August 1999, EPA released
proposed regulatory revisions to clarify and redefine the
current regulatory requirements for establishing Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Sec. 303(d). Recognizing that the proposed rule has undergone
some significant changes in the past year, the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)--AMSA represents the
interests of 246 of the nation's publicly-owned wastewater
treatment agencies. Together, AMSA member agencies serve the
majority of the sewered population and treat and reclaim more
than 18 billion gallons of wastewater every day--supports
EPA's efforts to revise the existing TMDL program, as well as
its schedule for finalizing the revisions by June 30, 2000.
AMSA anticipates that the final rule will be a major
improvement over the existing TMDL program, which has
traditionally focused solely on controlling point sources,
i.e., municipalities and industry, rather than developing
comprehensive solutions to the nation's water quality
problems. During the past 30 years, point sources of water
pollution--wastewater treatment plants, industry, and
others--have met the challenges of the Clean Water Act to
achieve our national clean water goals. The investment in
wastewater treatment has revived America's rivers and
streams, and the nation has experienced a dramatic resurgence
in water quality. However, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 40 percent of our
waters remain polluted--largely by nonpoint source pollution.
The situation will not improve until we include all sources
in the cleanup equation.
EPA's revised rule is expected to encourage the development
of implementation plans for TMDLs that provide as
``reasonable assurance'' that all source of pollution, point
and nonpoint, will be addressed as part of a cleanup plan.
Development of implementation plans will ensure that the
regulated community and the public have an opportunity to
review and understand how the regulatory agencies will
respond to local water quality problems. Implementation plans
will also help to ensure that municipalities, which hold many
of the nation's existing discharge permits, are not forced to
remove increasingly minimal amounts of pollutants from their
discharge at significant expense, while the major pollution
contributions from uncontrolled sources remain unaddressed.
Implementation plans, while requiring extra time and
resources to develop, will encourage holistic solutions that
will meet water quality goals, and will likely save billions
of dollars nationwide by ensuring proper expenditure of
limited local resources.
In addition to ensuring more involvement from all sources
of pollution, EPA's revised rule is also expected to improve
the existing TMDL program in several other areas including:
Improved ability for the regulated community and the public
to review decisions by state and federal regulatory agencies
to include or exclude waters on TMDL lists.--Currently, this
lack of protocol has led to the listing of many impaired
waters based upon outdated or very limited data, with very
little ability for public input or review. Requirements to
develop and follow these protocols will help to ensure that
TMDLs are properly developed using technically-based,
scientific approaches, which are supported by data of
adequate quality and quantity.
Allowing new or expanded discharges on impaired waters.--
Current regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.4 effectively prohibit
new discharges to impaired waters during TMDL development.
EPA's revised proposal should provide more flexibility for
new dischargers, or the expansion of existing discharges
during the 8 to 15-year TMDL development process by allowing
new or increased discharges where adjustments in source
controls will result in reasonable progress toward
environmental improvements. Given that 40,000 waters are
currently on EPA's impaired waters list, this flexibility is
critical if we are to allow for the continued economic
viability and growth of our nation.
Providing more realistic deadlines.--The existing TMDL
program is currently being driven by the courts, with
extremely ambitious schedules and deadlines for a developing
and implementing TMDLs. These deadlines will likely result in
poorly developed TMDLs based on little or inadequate data, or
[[Page 11786]]
grossly simplified TMDLs that fail to address costly
implementation issues. EPA's revised rules are expected to
allow up to 15 years of develop TMDLs, which will provide a
more realistic timeframe to develop and analyze the necessary
data needed to properly develop adequate TMDLs.
While AMSA still has some concerns with EPA's revised rule,
we do believe that the program revisions will provide greater
clarity concerning the roles and responsibilities of all
stakeholders in the TMDL process, and would make significant
improvements in our efforts to improve the nation's water
quality. We therefore urge you to oppose any legislative
efforts tht may interfere with EPA's ability to issue and
implement its comprehensive TMDL program revisions.
If AMSA's staff or member POTWS in your home state can
assist you in any way, please call me at (202) 833-4653.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Ken Kirk,
Executive Director.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time that is
remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, for over 25 years, the General Electric
Company in New York has been thwarting any effort to clean up the
Hudson River of the tons and tons of PCB they dumped into that river.
For 20 years, they demanded study after study after study. For 20
years, they told us the river itself would eliminate the sediments. It
has been studied. It has been studied and studied and studied to death
for 20 years. We know that the river itself did not eliminate the
sediments. We know they must be required to do so.
The EPA, having finished its findings, is finally requiring GE to
clean up the crud that they put in the river that is poisoning the
ability of communities downstream to use the water, to drink the water,
to use it for other purposes.
Now we have this language that says, in the interest of General
Electric, we will tell millions of people you cannot clean up your
water. This language is foul. It is intended to protect the foulness of
our water. I urge everybody to unfoul it by supporting the Hinchey
amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there are 14 States, some
30 sites that will be affected by the language in this amendment, 30
places around the country which are heavily contaminated with heavy
metals and toxic contaminants of various kinds which the EPA will not
be able to investigate, to find out what is there, to develop a
technology and a program for remediation if this language stays in the
bill.
This language is inappropriate in this appropriations bill. It ought
to be taken out. I ask everyone to join us in support of this
amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment introduced by my dear colleagues Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Brown and
Mr. Waxman. This amendment would ensure that this Body does not impose
limits on the use of EPA funds for dredging or other remediation
technologies to clean up contaminated sediments in lakes and rivers.
The Gowanus Canal, located in Brooklyn, New York, is in great need of
being dredged. Historic industrial uses in and around the canal have
caused significant amounts of hazardous materials to accumulate at the
bottom. The shallow depth restricts the use of the canal for navigation
and commercial purposes. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the
contaminated sediments represent a continued health threat for the
natural resources of the area.
This amendment is about many lakes and rivers around the country and
their surrounding communities. It is about the economic development and
prosperity opportunities that can not properly take place in
contaminated areas. It is about not limiting resources to enforce
drinking water standards.
Mr. Chairman, let us not limit the great economic and community
development possibilities and the restoration of the environment for my
constituents and for people and communities around the country.
Limiting those opportunities by limiting resources would be a
disservice to the people we represent.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and ensure that the
people we represent have no limits imposed upon their health, and the
restoration of their lakes and rivers.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak against this
amendment and in favor of the report language included in this bill. As
a member of the Appropriations Committee and the VA-HUD Subcommittee, I
support the common-sense approach the Committee has already taken to
address the problem of contaminated sediments in our rivers.
Three years ago, Congress directed the EPA not to issue dredging or
capping regulations until the National Academy of Sciences completes a
study on the risks of such actions. Qualified scientists are working to
finish this report to determine the best way to clean up rivers with
minimal impact to the surrounding environment. This has been an open
process, allowing input from the public, environmental organizations,
and from the EPA itself.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that this is an environmentally sensitive
issue, and it is important that most qualified, independent scientists
weigh in on this regulation. This is why I support the existing
language, which directs the EPA not to act prematurely and wait until
the NAS study is complete. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, pursuant to an agreement that we reached earlier in the
day, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) only
for purposes of discussing his amendment No. 7.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia
and will briefly discuss an amendment that was subject to a point of
order and, therefore, legislating on appropriations bill, and I could
not offer it.
This body just decided to go forward and fund a Space Station that is
$90 billion overbudget. Now, if this body is going to proceed with that
kind of decision, I would hope that they would do it prudently and with
our taxpayers in mind and with science at the forefront. My amendment
would simply say get the Russians out of the critical path and build it
with the American interests in the forefront.
Right now, according to this graph, this is the pie graph of how the
Space Station is built. The United States funds about 74 percent of it;
Europe, 11 percent; Canada, 3 percent; Russia has a question mark. Why?
The General Accounting Office has just come out with a new study saying
that the Russian participation will cost the American taxpayer $5
billion in the future because they are not coming forward with their
money, with their time, with their components. The U.S. taxpayers in
Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and West Virginia are going
to have to fund this.
So I encourage this committee to address this very critical issue and
get the Russians out of the critical path, get them out of the critical
path so that they cannot gum up the works and they cannot force the
American taxpayer to send their hard-earned money over to Russia.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan)
yield to me for the second amendment?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indian (Mr. Roemer) for the purpose only of speaking on his amendment
No. 8.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the other amendment would simply again look
at the U.S. taxpayers' interest, and it would cap the overall costs of
the Space Station.
According to a graph put together by CRS back in about 1988, the
Space Station took about 4 percent of NASA's budget. So out of an
overall spending of $13 billion, $13.2 billion, the Space Station
consumed about 4 percent.
Today, in the year 2000, that spending level is up to almost 20
percent of the NASA budget. So NASA is starting to cannibalize, cancel,
withdraw from,
[[Page 11787]]
and not do some very important scientific projects within the NASA
budget. That might be Shuttle safety programs, guaranteeing the safety
of our astronauts. They might be programs to do things faster, cheaper,
better. They might be space science programs. They may be missions to
Mars where, according to today's paper, scientists are claiming that
they have discovered water on Mars. Instead of building a Space Station
that limits our dreams, why not go beyond that?
So I would encourage my colleagues, if we are going to build this
Space Station, do it smartly, do it prudently, do it wisely, and do it
with the taxpayers' interests in mind. Do not send $5 billion in the
next couple years to Russia, not our hard-earned money, not our
families' hard-earned money. These are two steps that the appropriators
and the authorizers should take to curtail costs of the Space Station
in the future.
I would encourage my colleagues not to build it and plow this money
back into the National Science Foundation, back into NASA, back into
other good manufacturing programs that keep good high-paying jobs in
America.
So with that in mind, I would hope the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Walsh), who I greatly respect, and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) would consider these kinds of amendments next
year if we are going to go forward with this.
Get the Russians out of the critical path and also put a cap on the
Space Station that Mr. McCain has led efforts on in the Senate side.
The Senate has agreed to do that, but the House has not.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Collins:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used prior to June 15, 2001, for the designation, or
approval of the designation, of any area as an ozone
nonattainment area under the Clean Air Act pursuant to the 8-
hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone that was
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on July
18, 1997, (62 Fed. Reg. 38,356, p.38855) and remanded by the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 14, 1999, in the
case, American Trucking Ass'ns. v. EPA (No. 97-1440, 1999
Westlaw 300618).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the EPA had
unconstitutionally usurped Congress' legislative authority in
establishing strict new Federal air quality standards. Reasonable
persons expected the agency to delay further implementation of these
standards until the Supreme Court rules on the agency's appeal early
next year. However, the EPA has decided to go forward with the process
of designating hundreds of new areas in nonattainment status despite
the legal uncertainty.
This amendment is simple. It does not affect existing air quality
standards, nor does it render judgment on new standards. It only
requires the EPA to postpone further action until the Supreme Court
issues its final ruling. The only common sense reasonable approach is
to delay this process until the Supreme Court renders its decision in
early 2001.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) claim the
time in opposition?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), my colleague and neighbor to the east.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment.
Let me begin by explaining what the debate over this amendment is not
about. This is not a referendum on the underlying ozone standards. The
Supreme Court will review those standards later this year. This
amendment takes no stand on whether those standards should move forward
or not.
Second, and even more importantly, this amendment has nothing,
absolutely nothing to do with whether the Environmental Protection
Agency can impose sanctions on communities under the 8-hour ozone
standard. The D.C. Circuit Court decision already prohibits EPA from
imposing any sanctions before the Supreme Court hands down its
decision.
Let me emphasize this again. With or without this amendment, no
community will lose its highway funding, no community will face new
restrictions on plant expansions, no community will face any new
penalty or regulation under the new ozone rules before the Supreme
Court decision.
{time} 1800
The sponsors of this amendment know that. When I suggested to them
that statutory language to make it even clearer that the 8-hour
standard could not be enforced before the Supreme Court rule, the
sponsors dismissed it, telling me that EPA was already prevented from
enforcing the new standard.
So, again, no one should vote for this amendment thinking that it
will somehow protect their communities from enforcement of the new
ozone rules before the Supreme Court rules. The lower court has already
accomplished that.
So, then, what will this amendment do? This amendment would
unnecessarily delay implementation of the new ozone standard if, and
only if, it is upheld by the Supreme Court. This amendment would deny
the public complete information about air quality by enabling
communities to pretend that they do not have an air quality problem
when the data indicate that they do.
This amendment would slow the cleaning of our Nation's air by short-
circuiting a designation process that has been approved by the D.C.
Circuit Court. In short, this amendment would undermine and delay
efforts to clean our Nation's air.
And why would we undermine clean air efforts? The answers the
sponsors provide are far from compelling. First, they say that
continuing with the designation process would cost States and
localities additional money. That is not the case. Governors will
submit their designation proposals at the end of this month, long
before this amendment takes effect.
Moreover, the data for these proposals comes from existing monitors
that are already collecting data under the current ozone standard. The
only remaining costs are marginal. Existing staff at the EPA and the
State environmental agencies will spend some of their time reviewing
the proposals and reacting to EPA's decisions.
There is no cost issue here. Voting for the amendment will not save
much, if any, money. Cost savings are illusory. But approving the
amendment would have very real human cost. The amendment will delay
clean air efforts, resulting in more hospital admissions, more lost
days of work, more misery, more suffering for American families. Those
are real costs.
The sponsors of this amendment also suggest that this measure is
needed because otherwise communities would get a damaging black mark.
The idea here, I guess, is that dirty air does not exist if it is not
officially recognized. But, unfortunately, our lungs do not react to
political designations; they react to the chemicals actually present in
the air. All the official designation does is to enable the new rules
to move forward if, and only if, they are upheld by the Supreme Court.
Also, this black mark argument is a bit of a joke. It is not exactly
a secret which counties may be out of attainment. EPA released a list
of those
[[Page 11788]]
more than 3 years ago, and the sponsors themselves have been
circulating lists of out-of-attainment counties for weeks. In other
words, the black marks have already been given. The only question is
what we are going to do about those black marks. The amendment would
remove the black mark temporarily by pretending they were never given.
Without this amendment, communities can begin to figure out how to
remove the black marks by actually cleaning up their air.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
It is not necessary and it is contrary to the best interests of
American families.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder), cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think the crocodile tears the gentleman from New York has for the
number of hospital admissions must come from a bad dream, because the
EPA said to the court there is no way for us to quantify the health
statistics with their new rule.
The EPA wants to move forward with designating areas, and the
gentleman says that is not going to hurt anyone. But let me tell my
colleagues what happens when designations are made. Highway funds stop
under the Clean Air Act. Yes, highway funds stop, not because of
enforcement but because of designation. Fewer loans are extended to
businesses. A mountain of lawsuits from environmental groups, who are
now given standing, are filed against States and localities. Many more
thousands of dollars are spent by States and localities to comply with
the designation process, not the enforcement process. News articles
labeling regions as polluted, using standards that are unenforceable,
will occur, and businesses moving or expanding will go elsewhere.
Finally, an effective designation triggers a conformity process under
the Clean Air Act. That clearly means hundreds of billions of dollars
in highway funds lost. This is real. The EPA ought to abide by the
court decision.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I ask the House to support my colleagues
from Georgia and vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the EPA's new standards could potentially triple the
number of counties nationwide in violation of the Clean Air Act.
Chattahoochee County, in my congressional district, could possibly be
one of those counties impacted by the new national ambient air quality
standards.
Mr. Chairman, Chattahoochee County is not an industrial county. It is
a small poor rural county that is trying to build its economic base.
EPA's new standards, no matter how well intentioned, could seriously
damage this effort.
Last year, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that EPA's
standards are legally unenforceable. The Supreme Court announced that
they would consider EPA's appeal and all the arguments involved. Due to
this legal uncertainty, I truly believe that the EPA should delay
further implementation of the standards in order to allow time for the
Supreme Court to rule on the pending appeal.
Mr. Chairman, if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeals and
does rule that the new standards are unconstitutional, our States and
our local communities will have spent tax dollars to comply with
illegal requirements and will have nothing to show for their investment
in a federally mandated process. That is why I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong support of the
Collins-Linder amendment.
Now, I am sure we are going to hear today the standard EPA mantra
that the new air quality standards would prevent thousands of asthma
attacks and hospital admissions. We have already heard it. The problem
is that was determined with very faulty studies and bad science. These
were precisely the studies, the faulty studies, that the D.C. District
Court found were not backed by credible evidence and violated Congress'
legislative authority, and that led the court to overrule this agency.
That is the first branch of the Federal Government saying to this
Federal court that they must stop.
Furthermore, the Committee on Commerce listened hours on end to a
debate with EPA on this and found the same thing: this science is not
credible. We should not go forward with something until we know exactly
what we are doing because there are negative consequences of this.
Everybody needs to vote for this amendment and tell the EPA to cut it
out.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
It is my understanding, and I will address this to the gentleman from
Georgia, that the courts did rule or they did say that the science was
reasonable.
The other gentleman from Georgia, for whom I have great respect, made
a comment about the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) having
crocodile tears. Well, I can tell my colleague that I have crocodile
tears because of some of the ozone days that we have here in the State
of Maryland.
One of the counties in my district, Anne Arundel County, and I will
say it for all to hear, is the 11th worst county in the United States
for these kinds of ozone particulate problems. When that came out in
the press, and it was substantiated, the people did not get angry that
that information was there. The people were happy that they had that
information so they could talk to the local county executive and figure
out ways maybe they could help resolve that issue.
We have, in the State of Maryland, I do not know if it is worse than
anybody else, but we happen to be in the jet stream, the confluence of
the westerly winds that blow from the Midwest, and they come right
across the mid-Atlantic States, and they come right across my district,
and they carry everything from, well, not much from California, one
would assume, but the industrial area of the Midwest, and all of that
dirty air that they happen to put up in the atmosphere with the high
smokestacks, and I am not saying anything about the industrial area of
the Midwest, it just so happens we get a lot of the particulates and
ozone problems from that region as a result of the jet stream.
Now, because of that, we do not want to not know that information. We
want to know that information because, number one, we put up a lot of
pollution ourselves. We have coal-fired power plants; we have the I-95
corridor that runs right through the State of Maryland and brings all
that traffic and all those problems. So we want to know what we can do
with our own situation here in the State of Maryland. Not placing the
blame anyplace else, but saying we have a problem, we have the
information, we want to learn about how we can solve it.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Scientists have been studying the effects of ozone on human health
for many years, and we know there are serious adverse health effects
associated with ozone air pollution. Ozone can trigger asthma attacks,
reduce lung function, inflame and damage the lining of the lung.
Prolonged exposure can lead to permanent damage in the way human lungs
function. So we have a serious health issue associated with ozone.
In 1997, EPA finalized new standards for ozone and fine particulate
matters. In May of 1999, in a court case, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia remanded these standards back to EPA, and there is
an appeal now going on to the Supreme Court. But an issue that is not
under contention is
[[Page 11789]]
whether ozone is harmful or whether EPA had the science to promulgate
these standards. No one disagreed with that, and the court was explicit
in underscoring EPA's decision that it was based on the science.
What is at issue before the Supreme Court is an issue under the
nondelegation doctrine. And the Supreme Court is going to be looking at
that question. It is really quite an unprecedented matter of law. But
in the meantime, areas have been designated under this new standard.
This Linder-Collins amendment would stop the designation.
Well, the designation ought to go forward. It does not require
expenditure of money for costly monitoring. It does not require a loss
of highway funding. It is not EPA disregarding the court case. This is
important to go forward with the designations so the areas can be
prepared to move once the Supreme Court has decided the issue.
If this amendment were agreed to, it would set us years further along
before the localities would be in line to meet the standards and would
be prepared to do what is necessary to meet those standards. I would
hope Members would oppose the Collins-Linder amendment.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment,
and I start with one question: Have we walked through the looking glass
with Alice? Have we now entered Wonderland?
I want my colleagues to follow this with me. The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 specify in section 181 that EPA is to put in place a
1-hour standard for ozone and particulate protection, and to measure
communities out of attainment based upon that standard.
EPA decided on its own to revise that standard. The court of appeals
here in Washington said that was unconstitutional.
{time} 1815
It further held that their standards were arbitrary and capricious
and they use no intelligible standards by which to address the science
to this new formula they came up with. So they have got an
unconstitutional formula standard on their hands. They are told they
cannot enforce it. And yet today they are demanding that States declare
communities across America out of the attainment on a standard that has
been declared unconstitutional.
Have we entered Wonderland? Now we are told this is not going to cost
anything. EPA says this is going to cost $9.6 billion to implement.
Have we got $9.6 billion to throw away, designating nonattainment
communities on a standard that the Supreme Court might indeed declare
unconstitutional? I ask my colleagues, who of them in their district
has $9.6 billion to give to this worthless effort?
Secondly, the Supreme Court is going to rule on this next year. We
are going to get an answer as to whether this is real or not. In the
meantime, EPA wants to designate communities across America in 324
congressional districts, 324, three-quarters of the congressional
districts of this House, are going to be designated out of attainment.
For what? For a standard that has been declared unconstitutional.
Every one of those communities and congressional districts will be
stigmatized for economic growth and development and will be told they
are out of attainment, they are not in compliance with Federal law. And
my colleagues tell me damage will not be done.
This is Wonderland. We need to adopt this amendment.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Linder).
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would rightly supersede and suspend a
bureaucratic fiat by unelected agency officials that could cost our
States and communities billions of dollars as they struggle to comply
with an unattainable, unsubstantiated, and unconstitutional standard.
We should protect our constituents from the significant costs of
EPA's decision to mandate a new, highly restrictive ozone standard
until the Supreme Court decides whether or not they have the legal and
enforceable right to do so.
Already, the Court of Appeals has rejected the reasoning underlying
the EPA's decision to mandate these standards. Taxpayers should not be
burdened by premature enforcement of an agency's standard that cannot
be enforceable and should not be issued.
Exposing taxpayers to the increased costs of regulations erected on a
highly unstable constitutional footing makes little sense.
Let me be clear. This amendment is not a referendum on the Clean Air
Act. It simply protects taxpayers by postponing further action by the
EPA from prematurely designating these areas until the court has
decided that the EPA has the right to do that.
Congress should protect its own prerogatives and the taxpayers by
supporting this amendment and allowing the Supreme Court to render a
final determination.
Support common sense and fairness. Require the Congress to accept our
full responsibility in this area and allow the Supreme Court to make
its decision.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, America is only as strong as its communities; and by
placing a giant question mark over our communities, we do a disservice
to community growth.
My district, obviously, is one of the communities that would be
adversely impacted by the implementation of the EPA standards.
The United States Court of Appeals has ruled that the EPA label for
new air standards are legally unenforceable. So why does the EPA insist
to place a badge of inferiority over our Nation's cities?
Indianapolis, from which I am elected, is a badge that the U.S. Court
has viewed as having no merit. I support clean air. However, let it be
under a standard that has the legal sanction of the U.S. court system.
If allowed, this badge of inferiority that lacks legal precedent
could have an adverse impact on new businesses that may be less likely
to open new facilities in areas designated as contaminated. It may have
an impact on the hiring of new employees and community growth in that
people may not desire to move into an area that has been deemed to be
polluted.
Let us not place an illegal badge of inferiority on our American
citizens.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
As one of the 325 Members who could have all or part of our
congressional districts included in the nonattainment areas under the
EPA's 8-hour ozone standard, I want my constituents, especially
seniors, children and those with asthma, to have cleaner air sooner
rather than later.
In New Jersey, the months from April to October are not only the
summer season, but they are also known as the ozone season. During this
period, the Garden State will see an average of 240,000 asthma attacks;
2,000 related hospital admissions; and 6,000 related emergency room
visits. These statistics are from the New Jersey Department of Health.
The 8-hour standard is 10 percent more stringent than the current 1-
hour standard and incorporates larger geographic areas. This forces up-
wind polluting States, such as those in the Midwest, to do more of
their fair share to help down-wind receiving States, such as mine, come
into compliance.
[[Page 11790]]
EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act should go forward. I urge
that the amendment be rejected.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, there is so much misinformation in this
debate it is mind boggling.
Let me read from the D.C. Circuit Court decision. ``The factors EPA
uses in determining the degree of public health concern associated with
different levels of ozone and particulate matters are reasonable.''
That is a direct quote.
Secondly, not one penny is going to be spent in the designation
process. The only money that will be spent is if the Supreme Court
upholds these rulings. The fact of the matter is not one penny will be
spent by any community. No community loses highway funds. No community
loses any support from the Federal Government for economic development
activities.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) was absolutely correct.
It all boils down to this: The American people have a right to know.
The American people have a right to know.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right, there is a lot of
misinformation about this; and he just delivered some more.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Linder-
Collins amendment.
We are all supporters of clean air. This debate is not whether or not
ozone is harmful. We all know it is. This debate is about fairness. It
is a debate about whether or not we should all be able to play by the
same rules.
Over a year ago, the Federal Circuit court found that the EPA acted
without authorization in drafting these new 8-hour ozone standards. We
know that that matter is on appeal. But we also know that the EPA is
continuing to use these standards to label our communities and to
designate some of them as nonattainment areas.
What does a nonattainment label mean? It means a suspense of Federal
highway funds. It could mean the imposition of auto emissions testing
programs. And it certainly means restrictions on all of our local
industries. It is like a bright neon sign at the county line saying
``stay out'' to every business and industry that is looking for a new
place to invest.
We believe that everybody should be able to play by the same rules
and that we should wait until the Supreme Court rules.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the
gentleman, and I strongly associate myself with the comments from my
colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). He has it right.
The ozone problems are proven.
This amendment would be a significant step backward. It is, in fact,
legal and required to be done by the EPA. It would be wrong to set back
this work up to 2 years while some of the legal issues are, in fact,
being hashed out.
In Atlanta, failure to comply with the Clean Air Act provided much-
needed catalyst for making a serious examination of the impacts of
unplanned, rapid growth in its metropolitan area.
I think what is happening in Atlanta in Georgia is part of the
success stories. Because the new governor had the courage and the
foresight to move through a comprehensive approach they have not yet
lost one dime of Federal highway money, they have been able to channel
it for things that are in compliance with the plan, and they are able
to move ahead and move forward.
It would be a disservice to Atlanta and to other areas of the country
to not give people the best information, to not move forward as rapidly
as we can, and not be ready to implement this if, as I believe it is in
fact going to be the case, this is sustained by the Supreme Court.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment on the previous
speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), as far as putting a
neon sign on his area that was considered in a nonattainment area for
business purposes.
New York and Atlanta are both in nonattainment areas, and their
economies are prospering. So I think that is a nonargument.
And, also, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) said no
highway funds would be withheld as a result of this, and that is also
true.
I think that people should know the quality of their air.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment.
The EPA has already acted. The energy and commerce committee acted in
1990, laid it out fairly specifically.
I certainly respect the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) but I
differ with him on his interpretation of what the Court of Appeals
said. He relayed some information that they had deemed something
reasonable, but they also deemed it unconstitutional and they wrote I
think very clearly.
I think where the mistake is here, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert) says that to pass this amendment would unduly delay
implementation. Of course it would. That is the whole idea of the
amendment, asking them not to be unconstitutional, not to usurp the
congressional authority here.
They are presuming that the Supreme Court is going to bail them out.
I presume the Supreme Court is going to follow the law and tell the EPA
that they acted unconstitutionally, not to act. I think it is just that
clear.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, throughout the VA/HUD appropriations hearings this
year, I have had occasion to engage both EPA Administrator Carol
Browner and Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Bob
Perciasepe in a dialogue about their legal troubles and their faulty
standards and their flips and their reversals and their scientific
troubles.
In light of all that, let me explain a little personal experience we
are having with EPA in Michigan.
The EPA implemented national restrictive mandates on air using a 1-
hour measurement. Then EPA revoked the 1-hour measurement and switched
to an 8-hour measurement. Next the courts explained to EPA that their
actions were unconstitutional. Then the EPA flipped back again to the
first restrictive mandate.
As my colleagues can imagine, the States and the regulated community
are frustrated and harmed by EPA's failures.
Now the EPA is ignoring the most recent air quality data and is
instead relying on old, out-of-date designations that were in place at
the time the 1-hour measurement was revoked the first time.
Now, if my colleagues are lost, so were we and so are we.
Now, this bad action by EPA violates the long-standing legal
principle of fairness known as ``detrimental reliance.''
We can do a whole lot better than this. For just such examples as
these, I support the amendment and congratulate the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for
their leadership.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about gathering information. And
information is important. It is important for our cities and our
communities to know just exactly what kind of quality of air they have
there for their citizenry. But this does not stop information
gathering.
[[Page 11791]]
What we are concerned about is the designation, the mark, the stigma,
the scarlet letter that so many people will look at prior to
entertaining that community as a place to locate a business or even to
locate themselves.
{time} 1830
The amendment is just good common sense: wait until such time as the
Supreme Court rules on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I know a lot of times
common sense does not prevail that much here. But I hope it does today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. LINDER. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just deal with three points. None of us want our
constituents to suffer illness because of air. But let us talk about
what actually was said in the court. The D.C. Circuit specifically
noted that EPA's arguments on the health effects of changing from the
1-hour rule to the 8-hour rule for the 1997 standard were bizarre. That
is the court's response. Bizarre. The EPA itself argued during the
trial that the health effects were irrelevant to the development of the
rule, and EPA's own final rule on the 8-hour standard notes that
quantitative risk assessment could not be developed. This is the EPA
speaking.
With respect to the transportation issue and the highway funds, in
the Clean Air Act a nonattainment designation, which the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) referred to, triggers the conformity process.
Under this process, a region can lose all access to its Federal highway
funds even if it is in conformity. No EPA enforcement actions are
necessary to trigger conformity. Only a nonattainment designation is
needed to threaten a region's highway funding. The Federal DOT directs
all enforcement during this process.
Finally, let me say that this is not unprecedented. The gentleman
from New York voted for this 2 years ago. In TEA-21, we had a provision
that stayed the rules, that stayed the designation process for 1 year;
and we had that because we thought the court would be completed within
1 year. All Members who voted for TEA-21 voted for this moratorium, 297
Members strong. Unfortunately, the delay was not long enough. We will
just be extending it until the court finally decides.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to congratulate both sides in this debate. I
thought the debate was conducted at a high level. Solid points were
made on both sides. My view is that we should, when we have a decision
to make, make it based on facts; and I think we should err on the side
of caution. Caution in the sense of human health would dictate that we
oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been a leader and one of the reasons
that New York's air and water are cleaner than ever.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the Collins-Linder amendment is nothing
less than an effort to unnecessarily undermine clean air efforts by
dragging them out forever. All the designation does is give the public
information, information that they need to protect their families.
Nothing can go forward until the Supreme Court acts.
Are the sponsors afraid that a simple listing of a nonattainment area
will do damage? Are they worried that communities might start planning
to clean up their air? Are they afraid the citizens might start
agitating for cleaner air? Do they think that pretending that an area
has clean air by delaying its listing will enable its citizens to
breathe easier? We want to equip the American public with the
information they need to make intelligent decisions. If all we do is
continue to study these problems, we will end up with the best
documented environmental disaster in history.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
which could delay health protections for millions of Americans.
National ozone standards are a key tool in the fight against
respiratory disease.
Last year the DC Circuit court ruled that the new 8-hour ozone
standards can not be implemented in their current form.
However, it did not question their scientific basis, and it
recognized that current law requires EPA to designate non-attainment
areas for the new standards.
Because the case is under appeal to the Supreme Court, the EPA cannot
impose sanctions or restrictions or non-attainment areas.
EPA cannot enforce the new standards until the Court has ruled on the
appeal, so this amendment will not save any counties or states from
paying federal penalties.
This amendment will only prevent us from knowing just how polluted
our air really is . . .
. . . And needlessly delay ozone reductions that will improve air
quality for every American.
Opponents of tighter standards say that designating non-attainment
areas will be too costly.
They say that gathering air quality information is not worth our time
or money.
But with rising asthma rates and soaring health care costs, delaying
tough ozone standards will be far more expensive.
Today 30 million Americans live with lung disease, and their
conditions worsen with each breath of unhealthy air.
It costs more than $10 billion a year to treat the 17 million
Americans who suffer from asthma.
Asthma rates are growing most quickly among young children, so there
is every reason to believe that costs will continue to climb.
But health care costs alone don't tell the whole story.
Unhealthy air hurts everyone's quality of life.
Last fall, when I introduced a bill to cut toxic emissions from power
plants, I was joined at a press conference by Joan Benoit Samuelson, an
Olympic marathon gold medalist, and Maribeth Bush, a young woman from
Portland, Maine who suffers from chronic lung disease.
Ironically, each woman said that she doesn't need to watch the
weather report to learn the air quality in Maine that day.
One woman has met challenge as a world class athlete, while the other
finds every breath she takes a challenge.
Yet both need only step outside each morning to determine if the air
is unhealthy to breathe.
On a bad ozone day, everyone suffers, and this amendment will only
delay improvements in air quality that will help us all breathe more
freely.
The amendment is unnecessary, it is harmful, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Linder/
Collins amendment.
Despite a ruling last year from the U.S. Court of Appeals, the
Environmental Protection Agency continues to press states to enforce
its new air regulation standards. The Appeals Court had declared the
new standards unconstitutional delegations of legislative powers. The
EPA has now appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court will hear the
case.
In the meantime, however, EPA has notified governors that they have
until June 30 to designate areas that will not meet the new air
standards or the EPA will do it for them. EPA should not be pushing
states to enforce regulation that have been struck down in court and
whose future will be decided by the Supreme Court.
Five counties in my district have been put on notice that they will
not be in attainment of these new rules. How can these counties become
non-attainment areas of a regulation that has been declared invalid by
the Appeals Court? The EPA does not know what the outcome of the
Supreme Court decision will be, yet it is acting as though the air
standards are law, instead of respecting the decision of the Appeals
Court.
Edmonson County in my district is a rural area with little industy.
Much of the country is home to Mammoth Cave National Park. Yet Edmonson
County faces the possibility of becoming an ozone non-attainment area.
The area easily meets the current ozone standards. Requiring the state
and local government to plan for a possible regulation is a waste of
resources. At the same time, the area's efforts to attract industry to
provide more and better paying jobs to its residents will be hampered
by EPA's decision to move forward with null and void standards.
Western parts of my district around Owensboro are facing a similar
situation. Local officials are left in limbo, being told they will have
to take steps to change ozone levels in their counties but also knowing
that without the Supreme Court's approval, the regulations they are
planning for will not take affect. This is not prudent policy making.
[[Page 11792]]
Officials in Kentucky stated in media reports that the technology is
not available to determine the source of ozone, only its current
location. The counties in my district that could become non-compliant
will likely become so because of moving ozone. If the science is not
available to know where the higher ozone comes from, how are these
areas expected to eliminate it?
All of us support clean air. But air standards must have a scientific
background, be set according to the law and be evaluated on their costs
and benefits. Regulations for regulation's sake, such as these, produce
no benefits. EPA's job is to enforce the law, not create it. EPA should
enforce the provisions of the Clean Air Act, but it should do so in
accordance with the law and scientific standards. EPA has not presented
sufficient reasons for regulations beyond the 1990 standards.
Until the Supreme Court has issued its judgement on the validity of
the EPA's 1997 air quality regulation, we need to support this
amendment and keep state and local communities from bearing the costs
of this invalid regulation. Until a regulation that can legally be
enforced is in effect, this designation process must be postponed. This
is a simple, common sense request.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend both Mr.
Collins and Mr. Linder for offering this extremely important amendment
to stop EPA from implementing the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) until resolution of the matter by the Supreme Court.
The suburbs of Atlanta have, since 1997, been grappling with the
problems created by Atlanta's non-attainment of Clean Air Act
standards. The EPA has attempted to include these outlying areas in
their enforcement of these non-attainment standards, wreaking havoc on
the citizens, governments, and industries located in these areas. Last
year, a federal appeals court has ruled EPA acted unconstitutionally in
proposing the new NAAQS in 1997, because Congress had not empowered EPA
to act unilaterally on the matter. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear
the case, but it may not issue a decision until early 2001.
The resulting situation is one of increasing uncertainty. First,
communities already out of attainment are left shooting at a moving
target, because they have no idea whether the changes they are making
today will conform with the standards of tomorrow. Secondly, EPA may
end up including additional regions of the state in the non-attainment
area, in an effort to force them to change zoning and development
practices before the Court issues a ruling. Obviously, either situation
is extremely unfair, especially since EPA lost the first round of
litigation in court.
The Linder-Collins amendment simply states that EPA cannot enforce
the new standards until the Court determines whether the federal agency
acted constitutionally. By passing this amendment, we can ensure that
reasonable, common sense development practices are not supplanted by a
last-ditch effort by EPA to enforce its unconstitutional mandates in
the face of judicial and congressional opposition. The bottom line is
that EPA's games will cost taxpayers dollars, make local planning
impossible, create gridlock and increases pollution from idling cars.
Let's put a stop to this, and see what the Supreme Court has to say on
the issue.
I urge you to support passage of this amendment, to bring fairness
and accountability to the process whereby EPA sets mandated clear air
standards. Citizens cannot be allowed to flout the law and judicial
process, and neither should a federal regulatory agency.
Vote yes for the Linder-Collins amendment to VA-HUD Appropriations.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pascrell
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pascrell:
At the end of the bill (page 90, after line 16) insert the
following new section:
``Sec. . The second dollar amount otherwise provided in
title I under the heading ``Departmental Administration--
general operating expenses'', is hereby reduced by $100,000
and increased by $100,000.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. With this amendment I seek to correct the great neglect, Mr.
Chairman, with which the Veterans Administration treats many of our
Nation's veterans. The neglect to which I refer is the VA's lack of
effort in reaching out to our veterans and informing them what benefits
they are entitled to. Too often our Nation's heroes are not adequately
informed as to what benefits they are entitled to receive or how to
obtain those benefits, and their families are not as well. In fact, a
survey conducted by the VA indicated that less than half the veterans
contacted were aware of certain benefits they were entitled to receive,
including pension benefits for disabled and low-income veterans.
My amendment is simple. It mandates that whatever amount has been
previously earmarked for outreach to veterans must be increased by
$100,000 from the general operating fund. This extra funding is
desperately needed. It is time for the VA to take seriously its
responsibility for informing the veterans community about available
benefits.
To further achieve this goal, I have introduced legislation, the
Veterans Right to Know Act. My bill mandates that the Veterans
Administration inform widows and survivors of vets about what benefits
and services are available to them. It further requires that the VA
develop an annual outreach plan designed to help identify veterans who
are not registered and devise ways to inform vets of changes to their
benefits.
Most importantly, my bill requires that the VA consult with veterans'
organizations in developing the plan. That way we know it will work. I
am a veteran. I am fully aware of the challenges that we face, the
hardships that many of us have endured, and the pride we take in having
served our country. Members of the Armed Forces have put themselves at
great risk to protect America. In return, the Federal Government has
made a commitment to both active duty and retired military personnel to
provide certain benefits. Veterans throughout this country deserve
these benefits. They have earned these benefits through their
patriotism and their courage and their values. It is an absolute
outrage that the Government they fought for is not doing a good enough
job informing them of what they are entitled to receive. It is our
responsibility to inform our veterans as to what benefits they are
entitled to receive. Abraham Lincoln spoke of this responsibility in
his second inaugural address, saying we must ``care for him who shall
have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.''
Throughout our Nation's history, millions of men and women have
served in our Armed Forces, during times of peace and in times of war.
They have defended the very freedoms our country was founded upon. My
legislation honors that commitment. I am going to fight to make it the
law of the land.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last world. I thank the
gentleman for his hard work in this area. We share his concerns
regarding veterans and their ability to know all their benefits and
that their dependents are entitled to that. This legislation is before
the authorizing committee. We would urge them to consider it in a
timely manner. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page 11793]]
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer the Communities for Safer Guns
Coalition.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Today, I offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department
of Housing and Urban Development from spending any Federal funds on the
Communities for Safer Guns Coalition. This unauthorized program
implemented by HUD could have adverse consequences on State and local
law enforcement. According to HUD's press releases, coalition members
sign a pledge and agree to show buying preferences to gun manufacturers
who agree to impose gun control on themselves, their dealers and their
customers. In other words, HUD and the communities signing these
pledges are willing to sacrifice the requirements of law enforcement in
order to coerce manufacturers into gun control agreements that they in
turn impose upon their dealers and their customers. But you need not
take my word for it. Two major law enforcement groups oppose these
preferences.
Let me share with Members a few of their comments. The Law
Enforcement Alliance of America, or LEAA, states this in their
opposition to these preferences and I quote:
``LEAA disapproves of any attempt by the Clinton administration to
strip law enforcement agencies of their right to choose the firearms
for their officers. Each individual law enforcement agency is wholly
qualified to decide the firearm manufacturers and models that they deem
best suited for the needs of their officers. In fact, the individual
law enforcement agencies are the most qualified to understand their
particular needs. They do not need the Federal Government's partisan
politics manipulating this or any other officer safety decisions made
at the local level.''
The Fraternal Order of Police states:
``The top concern of any law enforcement agency purchasing firearms
is officer safety, not adherence to a particular political philosophy.
Law enforcement agencies have to stretch every dollar and they need to
get the best weapons for their officers that their budget allows.
Reducing their choices by imposing a requirement that they buy only
from gunmakers who agree to certain HUD stipulations does not help the
law enforcement mission.''
We cannot allow those who lay their lives on the line each and every
day to go into the field with equipment ill-suited for their mission.
We owe it to them to ensure that they have the best equipment they can
afford without regard to HUD's end run around this legislature to
legislate by litigation and coercion.
I urge all Members to support my amendment and show their support for
law enforcement. Do not allow HUD to overrule officer safety for the
purpose of a political agenda. Support the ability of law enforcement
to choose the best equipment for themselves. Vote yes on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Hostettler amendment will
prevent the Department of Housing and Urban Development from working
with the Community for Safer Guns Coalition. The coalition consists of
more than 411 State and local governments around the Nation that have
signed on to reduce gun violence in their communities. Those
governments came together following Smith & Wesson's agreement with HUD
in which the manufacturer agreed to make safer guns and to prevent guns
from being sold to criminals. Some communities in the coalition include
Syracuse, New York; Bloomington, Indiana; Davenport, Iowa; Los Angeles;
Oakland; Wilmington; Peoria; Bowling Green; Anderson, South Carolina;
Brink, New Jersey, and many others.
Mr. Chairman, I include the complete list for the Record:
Communities for Safer Guns Coalition
alabama
Mitchell, Quitman, Mayor, Bessemer.
Price, Julian, Mayor, Decatur.
Snow, Willie, Mayor, Hobson City.
Phillips, Leon, Mayor, Lake View.
Daniel, Edward, Mayor, Marion.
Dow, Michael, Mayor, Mobile.
May, James, Mayor, Uniontown.
arkansas
Hays, Patrick, Mayor, North Little Rock.
arizona
Grijalva, Raul, Board of Supervisors Chair, Prima County.
Wilcox, Mary Rose, Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County.
california
Chan, Wilma, President of the Board of Supervisors, Alameda
County.
Rocha, Mary, Mayor, Antioch.
Shoup, Mark, Mayor, Apple Valley.
Cruz-Madrid, Christina, Mayor, Azuza.
Dean, Shirley, Mayor, Berkeley.
Clegg, Legrand, City Attorney, Compton.
Wilson, Sharifa, Mayor, East Palo Alto.
Morrisson, Gus, Mayor, Fremont.
Cooper, Roberta, Mayor, Hayward.
Van Arsdale, Lori, Mayor, Hemet.
Dorn, Roosevelt, Mayor, Inglewood.
Hahn, James, City Attorney, Los Angeles.
Brown, Jerry, Mayor, Oakland.
Bogaard, Bill, Mayor, Pasadena.
Gardner, Garth, Mayor, Pico Rivera.
Corbin, Rosemary, Mayor, Richmond.
Yee, Jimmie, Mayor, Sacramento.
Renne, Louise, City Attorney, San Francisco.
Miller, Harriet, Mayor, Santa Barbara.
Valles, Judith, Mayor, San Bernadino.
Carlson, Brenda, County Supervisor, San Mateo County.
Trindle, Greg, LT, San Mateo County Police Chief.
Andre, Curt, Mayor, Turlock.
Nolan, Robert, Mayor, Upland.
Intintoli, A.J., Mayor, Vallejo.
colorado
Richards, Rachel, Mayor, Aspen.
Markalunas, James, Councilman, Aspen Council.
Toor, Will, Mayor, Boulder.
Parsons, Donald, Mayor, Northglenn.
connecticut
Ganim, Joseph, Mayor, Bridgeport.
Eriquez, Gene, Mayor, Danbury.
Larson, Timothy, Mayor, East Hartford.
Amento, Carl, Mayor, Hamden.
Peters, Michael, Mayor, Hartford.
Marinan, Joseph, Mayor, Meriden.
Destefano, John, Mayor, New Haven.
Malloy, Dannel, Mayor, Stamford.
Blumenthal, Richard, Mr., State of Connecticut.
Borer, Jr., Richard, Mayor, West Haven.
delaware
Sills, James, Mayor, Wilmington.
district of columbia
Williams, Anthony, Mayor, Washington, DC.
florida
Aungst, Brian, Mayor, Clearwater.
Hanson, Carol, Mayor, Boca Raton.
Jackson, Robert, Mayor, Largo.
Brown, Samuel, Mayor, Lauderdale Lakes.
Schwartz, Arlene, Mayor, Margate.
Wolland, Frank, Mayor, North Miami.
Foster, E., Mayor, Ocala.
Miller, Alvin, Mayor, Opa-Lacka.
Hickson, Linda, Deputy Clerk, Palm Beach County.
Armstrong, Rae, Mayor, Plantation.
Reeder, Dottie, Mayor, Seminole.
Anthony, Clarence, Mayor, South Bay.
Fischer, David, Mayor, St. Petersburg.
Feren, Steven, Mayor, Sunrise.
Schreiber, Joe, Mayor, Taramac.
Daves, Joel, Mayor, West Palm Beach.
Penelas, Alexander, Mayor, Miami-Dade County.
georgia
Campbell, William, Mayor, Atlanta.
Albritten, Robert, Mayor, Dawson.
Hillard, Patsy, Mayor, East Point.
Hightower, Michael, County Commissioner, Fulton County.
Gresham, Emma, Mayor Keysville.
Ellis, Jack, Mayor, Macon.
Adams, Floyd, Mayor, Savannah.
Burris, Chuck, Mayor, Stone Mountain.
Davis, Willie, Mayor, Vienna.
Johnson, BA, Mayor, Wadley.
Carter, James, Mayor, Woodland.
hawaii
Cayetano, Benjamin, Governor, Hawaii.
Harris, Jeremy, Mayor, City and County of Honolulu.
iowa
Crews, Jon, Mayor, Cedar Falls.
[[Page 11794]]
Clancy, Lee, Mayor, Cedar Rapids.
Yerington, Phil, Mayor, Davenport.
Rooff, John, Mayor, Waterloo.
Koehrsen, Bernal, Chief, Waterloo Police Department.
illinois
Williams, Carolyn, Mayor, Alorton.
Mulder, Arlene, Mayor, Arlington Heights, Village of.
Powell, Debra, Mayor, East St. Louis.
Bennett, Sillierine, Mayor, Ford Heights.
Jackson, Linda, Mayor, Glendale Heights.
Kolb, Ernest, Mayor, Oak Lawn.
Grieves, Lowell, Mayor, Peoria.
Box, Charles, Mayor, Rockford.
Schwiebert, Mark, Mayor, Rock Island.
Wade, Jr., Casey, Mayor, Sun River Terrace.
indiana
Selman, Edwin, Mayor, Angola.
Ullrich, Richard, Mayor, Aurora.
Abplanalp, Bill, Mayor, Batesville.
Fernandex, John, Mayor, Bloomington.
Glassley, Ron, Mayor, Columbia City.
Johnson, Thomas, Mayor, Dunkirk.
Pastrick, Robert, Mayor, East Chicago.
King, Scott, Mayor, Gary.
Dedelow, Duane, Mayor, Hammond.
Buzinec, Linda, Mayor, Hobart.
McGahen, Larry, Mayor, Kendallville.
Dembowski, Nancy, Mayor, Knox.
Heath, Dave, Mayor, Lafayette.
Sheriff, Lafayette.
Huntington, Albert, Mayor, Madison.
Brillson, Sheila, Mayor, Michigan City.
Beutter, Robert, Mayor, Mishawaka.
Canan, Dan, Mayor, Muncie.
Overton, Regina, Mayor, New Albany.
Redick, Dennis, Mayor, Noblesville.
Blair, Richard, Mayor, Peru.
Yeazel, James, Mayor, Plymouth.
Arihood, Herb, Mayor, Rensselaer.
Campbell, Douglas, Mayor, Salem.
Margerum, Sonya, Mayor, West Lafayette.
Bercik, Robert, Mayor, Whiting.
KANSAS
Wagnon, Joan, Mayor, Topeka.
Marinovich, Carol, Mayor, Wyandotte County/Kansas.
KENTUCKY
Renaud, Eldon, Mayor, Bowling Green.
LOUISIANA
Roberson, Joyce, Mayor, Campti.
Washington, Bobby, Mayor, Cullen.
Davis, Willie, Mayor, Farmerville
Coco, Jean, Mayor, Grand Coteau.
Geyen, Rodney, Mayor, Lake Charles.
Pierce, Abe, Mayor, Monroe.
Jupiter, Darnell, Mayor, Napoleonville.
Morial, Marc, Mayor, New Orleans.
Berry, Isam, Mayor, Rayville.
MASSACHUSETTS
Galluccio, Anthony, Mayor, Cambridge.
Menino, Thomas, Mayor, Boston.
Yunits, John, Mayor, Brockton.
Ragucci, David, Mayor, Everett.
Tobey, Bruce, Mayor, Gloucester.
Rurak, James, Mayor, Haverhill.
Sullivan, Michael, Mayor, Holyoke.
Dowling, Patricia, Mayor, Lawrence.
McManus, Patrick, Mayor, Lynn.
Howard, Richard, Mayor, Malden.
McGlynn, Michael, Mayor, Medford.
Kalisz, Frederick, Mayor, New Bedford.
Mead, Lisa, Mayor, Newburyport.
Barrett, John, Mayor, North Adams.
Higgins, Mary, Mayor, North Hampton.
Torigan, Peter, Mayor, Peabody.
Doyle, Jr., Gerald, Mayor, Pittsfield.
Sheets, James, Mayor, Quincy.
Ambrosino, Thomas, Mayor, Revere.
Usovicz, Stanley, Mayor, Salem.
Kelly Gay, Dorothy, Mayor, Somerville.
Albano, Michael, Mayor, Springfield.
maryland
Carter, Cynthia, Councilwoman, Annapolis.
O'Malley, Martin, Mayor, Baltimore.
Dodson, Vivian, Mayor, Capitol Heights.
Simms, Jack, Mayor, District Heights.
Williams, Donjuan, Mayor, Glen Arden.
Beverly, Lillian, Mayor, North Brentwood.
Krasnow, Rose, Mayor, Rockville.
Kennedy, Eugene, Mayor, Seat Pleaseant.
Curran, Joseph, State Attorney, State of Maryland.
maine
Kane, Thomas, Mayor, Portland.
michigan
Guido, Michael, Mayor, Dearborn.
Canfield, Ruth, Mayor, Dearborn Heights.
Archer, Dennis, Mayor, Detroit.
Stanley, Woodrow, Mayor, Flint.
Hampton, Hilliard, Mayor, Inkster.
Kirksey, Jack, Mayor, Livonia.
Moore, Walter, Mayor, Pontiac.
Loster, Gary, Mayor, Saginaw.
Dumas, Curtis, Mayor, St. Clair Shores.
Notte, Richard, Mayor, Sterling Heights.
Pitoniak, Gregory, Mayor, Taylor.
Thomas, Robert, Mayor, Westland.
minnesota
Kautz, Elizabeth, Mayor, Burnsville.
Belton, Sharon, Mayor, Minneapolis.
Anderson, Karen, Mayor, Minnetonka.
Canfield, Chuck, Mayor, Rochester.
missouri
Duncan, Phil, Mayor, Belton.
Deinbo, Babatunde, Mayor, Berkeley.
Eagan, James, Mayor, Florissant.
Green, Alexander, Mayor, Hayti Heights.
Stewart, Rondell, Mayor, Independence.
Shields, Katheryn, County Executive, Jackson County.
Brooks, Alvin, Mayor Pro Tem, Kansas City.
Bush, Errol, Mayor, Northwoods.
Whitfield, Kennard, Mayor, Rock Hill.
Harmon, Clarence, Honorable, St. Louis.
Hensley, Robert, Mayor, Velda City.
mississippi
Scott, Alice, Mayor, Canton.
King, Rober, Mayor, Fayette.
Smith, Eddie, Mayor, Holly Springs.
Johnson, Harvey, Honorable, Jackson.
Phillips, Joe, Mayor, Jonestown.
Norman, Nerissa, Mayor, Mound Bayou.
Arnold, Amelda, Mayor, Port Gibson.
Otis, Larry, Mayor, Tupelo.
Walker, Robert, Mayor, Vicksburg.
Leach, Wardell, Mayor, Yazoo.
nebraska
Ryan, Jerry, Mayor, Bellevue.
north carolina
Wilson, Frank, Mayor, Bolton.
Liles, George, Mayor, Concord.
Tennyson, Nicholas, Mayor, Durham.
Holliday, Keith, Mayor, Greensboro.
new jersey
Tomasko, Paul, Mayor, Alpine.
Russell, Wilbert, City Manager, Asbury Park.
Whelan, James, Mayor, Atlantic City.
Lunn, Scott, Mayor, Barrington.
Doria, Joseph, Mayor, Bayonne.
Escott, William, Mayor, Bellville.
Lynch, Richard, Chief of Police, Belmar.
Lowden, Robert, Mayor, Beverly.
Bukowski, John, Mayor, Town of Bloomfield.
Thatcher, David, Mayor, Borough of Laurel Springs.
Sacco, Nicholas, Mayor, North Bergen.
Scarpelli, Joseph, Mayor, Township of Brick.
Pirroli, Michael, Mayor, Bridgetown.
Sandve, Edward, Borough Administrator, Caldwell.
Milan, Milton, Honorable, Camden.
Kurzenknabe, George, Chief of Police, Chatham.
Poindexter, Arland, Mayor, Chesilhurst.
Ellenport, Robert, Mayor, Clark.
Morin, III, Philip, Mayor, Cranford.
Fisher, Douglas, Chair, Cumberland County.
Musso, Carol, Mayor, Deerfield.
Vittorino, Victor, Mayor, Delanco.
Colasurdo, Lawrence, Mayor, East Hanover.
Bowser, Robert, Mayor, East Orange.
Bollwage, J., Mayor, Elizabeth.
Jung, Louis, Mayor, Fanwood.
Chizukula, Upendra, Mayor, Franklin Township.
Seaman, Annette, Mayor, Fredon Township.
De Rienzo, John, Mayor, Haworth.
Russo, Anthony, Mayor, Hoboken.
Bost, Sara, Mayor, Irvington.
Delucca, Jr., Frank, Mayor, Lindenwold.
Schneider, Adam, Mayor, Long Branch.
Corradino, Angelo, Mayor, Manville.
Dobies, Ronald, Mayor, Middlesex.
Thompson, Lewis, City Clerk, Administrator, Millville.
James, Sharpe, Mayor, Newark.
Cahill, James, Mayor, New Brunswick.
Morgan, Allen, Mayor, New Providence.
George, Randy, Mayor, North Haledon.
Weldon, Terrance, Mayor, Ocean.
Letts, Mimi, Mayor, Parsippany.
Barnes, Martin, Mayor, Paterson.
Wyant, Jr., Harry, Mayor, Phillipsburg.
McWilliams, Albert, Mayor, Plainfield.
Kennedy, James, Mayor, Rahway.
Nolan, Brian, Mayor, Rocky Hill.
DeBell, Louis, Mayor, Roseland.
Gage, Earl, Mayor, Salem City.
Harelik, Clara, Mayor, Springfield.
Adams, Frank, Mayor, Spring Lake Heights.
Palmer, Douglas, Mayor, Trenton.
Garcia, Raul, Mayor, Union City.
Force, Maria, Mayor, Verona.
Riga, Raymond, Chief of Police, Wayne Township Police
Department.
Wright, David, Mayor, Winfield.
McGrevey, James, Mayor, Woodbridge.
Higgins, Josephine, Mayor, Woodcliff Lake.
new mexico
Baca, Jim, Mayor, Albuquerque.
Smith, Ruben, Mayor, Las Cruces.
Hunting, Louis, Mayor, Los Lunas.
Delgado, Larry, Mayor, Sante Fe.
nevada
Mack, Michael, Mayor, Las Vegas.
Griffin, Jeff, Mayor, Reno.
new york
Charles, Michael, Mayor, Akron, Erie County.
Jennings, Gerald, Mayor, Albany.
Breslin, Mike, County Executive, Albany.
Duchessi, John, Mayor, Amsterdam.
DeAngelis, Christopher, Mayor, Auburn, Cayuga County.
Schaffer, Richard, Mr., Babylon Township.
Engelbracht, J.C., Town Attorney, Baldwinsville, Onondago
County.
O'Hara, Dan, Mayor, Baldwinsville, Onondaga County.
Hollwedel, John, Town Supervisor, Town of Bethany.
Fiala, Anthony, Majority Leader, Binghamton.
[[Page 11795]]
Fiala, Barbara, County Clerk, Binghamton.
Harder, David, Sheriff, Binghamton, Broome County.
Pasquale, Vincent, Minority Leader, Binghamton, Broome
County.
Whalen, Mark, Binghamton, Broome County
Frankel, Sandra, Ms., Brighton Township.
Engel, Eliot, Congressman, Bronx.
Espada, Pedro, NYC Council, Bronx.
Ortiz, Felix, State Assembly, Bronx.
Rivera, Jose, NYC Council, Bronx.
Brennan, James, State Assembly, Brooklyn, Kings County.
Cymbrowitz, Lena, Assembly Member, Brooklyn, Kings County.
Jacobs, Rhoda, State Assembly, Brooklyn, Kings County.
Perry, Nick, State Assembly, Brooklyn, Kings County.
Masiello, Anthony, Mayor, Buffalo.
Hoyt, Sam, State Assembly, Buffalo.
Eichenberger, Robert, Supervisor, Town of Byron.
Bilow, Donald, Supervisor, Chateaugay.
Battiato, Joseph, Mayor, Chester.
Kobre, Jerome, Mayor, Village of Chestnut Ridge.
Deno, George, Town Supervisor, Chozy.
Leak, Frank, Mayor, Village of Colonie.
Phillips, Harold, Supervisor, Town of Constable.
O'Shea, Donal, Supervisor, Town of Coventry.
Elliott, Robert, Mayor, Croton-on-Hudson.
Drew, K. John, Mayor, Darien.
Schneiderman, Jay, Supervisor, East Hampton, Suffolk
County.
Hughes, Stephen, Mayor, Elmira.
Clark, Frank, District Attorney, Erie County.
Catalino, Robert, Supervisor, Town of Evans.
Glacken, William, Mayor, Village of Freeport Incorporated.
Kennison, Weston, Town Supervisor, Geneseo, Livingston
County.
Feiner, Paul, Supervisor, Greenburgh, Westchester County.
McNulty, Jack, Mayor, Green Island, Albany County.
Suozzi, Thomas, Mayor, Glen Cove.
Garner, James, Mayor, Hempstead.
Donley, Frances, Supervisor, Town of Russia, Herkimer
County.
Passarell, Lewis, Mayor, Holley, Orleans County.
Hogan, Shawn, Mayor, Hornell.
Cohen, Alan, Mayor, Ithaca.
Blumenthal, Susan, Alderperson, Ithaca.
Wade, George, Mayor, LaGrange.
Taylor, Ronald, Town Supervisor, Leray.
Mullen, Kevin, Mayor, Village of Liberty.
Crystal, Joel, City Council Vice President, Long Beach.
Salone, John, Mayor, Village of Lyons.
DiVeronica, Rocco, Mr., Madison County.
Gottfried, Richard, State Assembly. Manhattan.
Miller, A. Gifford, Council Mbr, Manhattan.
DeStefano, Joseph, Mayor, Middletown.
George, Thomas, Supervisor, Town of Monlius.
Christiano, Joseph, Mayor, Mount Morris.
Davis, Ernest, Mayor, Mount Vernon.
Altmann, Lisanne, Legislator, Nassau County.
Idoni, Timothy, Mayor, New Rochelle.
Spitzer, Israel, Deputy Mayor, New Square.
Carrion, Adolfo, Council Mbr, New York.
Michels, Stanley, City Council, New York City.
Stringer, Scott, Assembly Mbr, New York.
Vallone, Peter, City Council, New York.
Spitzer, Eliot, Mr., State of New York
Keller, John, Chief, Niagara Police Department.
Newburger, May, Supervisor, North Hempstead Township.
Kabasakalian, Mary, Mayor, North Tonawanda.
Leifeld, Berndt, Supervisor, Town of Olive.
Muller, Kim, Mayor, Oneonta, Otsego County.
Kleiner, Thom, Mr., Orangetown.
Cudney, Toni, Town Supervisor, Orchard Park, Erie County.
Cambariere, Thomas, Mayor, Ossining.
Eiser, Bonnie, Council Mbr, Town of Osyter Bay.
Venditto, John, Supervisor, Town of Osyter Bay.
Mayle, Judith, Town Supervisor, Plattekill.
Stewart, Daniel, Mayor, Plattsburgh.
Marshall, Herbert, Mayor, Village of Pomona.
Clark, Barbara, Assemblywoman, Queens, Queens County.
Cohen, Michael, State Assembly, Queens, Queens County.
Pheffer, Audrey, State Assembly, Queens, Queens County.
Scarborough, William, Assembly Member, Queens.
Reisman, Herbert, Town Supervisor, Ramapo/Rockland County.
Murray, Eugene, Mayor, Rockville Center.
Klotz, Kenneth, Mayor, Saratoga Springs.
Jurczynski, Albert, Mayor, Schenectady.
Cannuscio, Vincent, Supervisor, Southampton, Suffolk
County.
Cochran, Jean, Supervisor, Town of Southold.
Armstrong, Thomas, Town Supervisor, Town of Springfield,
Erie County.
Thompson, Alan, Mayor, Spring Valley, Rockland County.
Gentile, Vincent, Senator, Staten Island.
Bernardi, Roy, Mayor, Syracuse.
O'Connell, Katharine, Council at Large, Syracuse.
Pattison, Mark, Mayor, Troy.
Ludwick, Richard, Mayor, Village of Unionville.
Hanna, Edward, Mayor, Utica.
Spano, Andrew, County Executive, Westchester County.
Klein, John, Mayor, Wurtsboro.
Fuller, Richard, Supervisor, Town of Yorkshire.
ohio
Plusquellic, Donald, Mayor, Akron.
Watkins, Richard, Mayor, Canton.
Onunwor, Emmanual, Mayor, East Cleveland.
Campbell, Jane, County Commissioner, Cuyahoga County.
Grace, W., Mayor, Elyria.
Oyaski, Paul, Mayor, Euclid.
Stare, Frank, Mayor, Newark.
Liebherr, Raymond, Chief of Police, Fairborn Police
Department.
Mills, James, Mayor, Lebanon.
Salter, Shirley, Mayor, Lincoln Heights.
Boldt, Gerald, Mayor, Parma.
Rawson, Judith, Mayor, Shaker Heights.
Copeland, Warren, Mayor, Springfield.
Schaffer, Lee Ann, Mayor, Stow.
Finkbeiner, Carleton, Mayor, Toledo.
Fudge, Marcia, Mayor, Warrensville Heights.
Farley, Susan, Mayor, Woodlawn.
Rice, Robert, Mayor, Woodmere.
oklahoma
Fox, Helen, Mayor, Grayson.
Murrell, Marilyn, Mayor, Arcadia.
oregon
Torrey, Jim, Mayor, Eugene.
Stein, Beverly, Mayor, County of Multnomah.
pennsylvania
DiGirolamo, Joseph, Mayor, Bensalem.
Goldsmith, Thomas, Mayor, Easton.
Street, John, Mayor, Philadelphia.
Shadle, Forest, County Commissioner, Schuylkill County.
Young, Wilbert, Mayor, Wilkinsburg.
Robertson, Charles, Mayor, York.
puerto rico
Marin, William, Mayor, Caguas.
Lopez Gerena, Julio, Mayor, Humacao.
Cordero Satiago, Rafael, Mayor, Ponce.
rhode island
O'Leary, John, Mayor, Cranston.
Cianci, Vincent, Mayor, Providence.
Avedisian, Scott, Mayor, Warwick.
south carolina
Anderson, Lovith, Mayor, Andrews.
Carter, John, Mayor, Gray Court.
Talley, James, Mayor, Spartanburg.
tennessee
Fulmar, Ken, Mayor, Bartlett.
Dotson, J., Chief, Chattanooga Police Department.
texas
White, John, Mayor, Ames.
Aranda, Jose, Mayor, Eagle Pass.
Saleh, Mary, Mayor, Euless.
Thurston, Cathy, Mayor, Everman.
Carreathers, Raymond, Mayor, Prairie View.
Beatty, Chuck, Mayor, Waxahachie.
utah
Anderson, Ross, Mayor, Salt Lake City.
virgina
Ward, William, Mayor, Chesapeake.
Hedgepeth, Roger, Mayor, Blacksburg.
Archer, Ruby, Mayor, Danville.
Warren, Druie, Mayor, Lynchburg.
Frank, Joe, Mayor, Newport News.
Fraim, Paul, Mayor, Norfolk.
Holley, James, Mayor, Portsmouth.
Kaine, Timothy, Mayor, Richmond.
Oliver, Jerry, Mr., Richmond.
Bowers, David, Mayor, Roanoke.
Gaskins, A.L. (Joe), Mr., Roanoke.
vermont
Clavelle, Peter, Mayor, Burlington.
washington
Asmundson, Mark, Mayor, Bellingham.
Sims, Ron, County Executive, King County.
west virginia
Colombo, Jimmy, Mayor, Parkersburg.
wisconsin
Bauman, Susan, Mayor, Madison.
Smith, James, Mayor, Racine.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, officials in the coalition
sign a pledge saying they support giving a preference to making
purchases from gun manufacturers that have adopted a set of new gun
safety and dealer feasibility standards, 411 participants. Cities,
counties, States and some police departments have joined the coalition
voluntarily. What do they get from HUD in exchange for their
membership? Absolutely nothing. Except they know that their police
departments are buying from a company
[[Page 11796]]
that is manufacturing safer guns. They know that this company has
worked to prevent gun injuries and keeping gun criminals from getting
guns. It simply says if firearms are the same in price and quality,
then the locality would give a preference to the manufacturer that
makes safer guns. This is a preference, not a straitjacket. It is up to
the locality to determine how to implement it. This is really a matter
of local control.
If Members believe their local officials in Nassau County, New York,
or Knox, Indiana, should have the option to promote gun safety through
participation in the coalition, which they have, then they will oppose
the amendment. This amendment says that communities cannot come
together to stop gun violence. I again say this amendment states the
status quo is acceptable. The amendment says that it is permissible to
ignore the gun violence that has affected our schools and made our
communities into killing zones. The Congress should not micromanage how
411 communities around the Nation fight gun violence. The Congress
should not be able to mandate how a locality does business.
{time} 1845
If a city wants to conduct its business in the society in a
responsible way, that is the city's business, not the Congress'. We
should do the right thing and vote no on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to note that LEAA is in support of
this amendment. They oppose any legislation which would limit the
sources from which firearms could be procured.
If this is really gun safety, the police should be the first in the
country to want this. I understand that a third of the policeman who
are shot are shot with their own gun. When this technology is mature,
the police will be the first to support it. The fact that they are not
supporting this should send a message to us that we do not need to be
supporting planning in this bill which the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development could use to require or influence the purchase of
guns only from those companies that have been coerced into a settlement
with the government to avoid a long and expensive lawsuit.
When this technology is mature, it will be there. And us passing
silly legislation that this amendment would be is not going to hasten
the orderly development of that technology. There is nobody that I know
of who does not want safe guns, and the police should be the first who
would want this, because it would assure their safety because a third
of them when they are shot are shot with their own gun.
Furthermore, what this does is to clearly violate longstanding
Federal procurement regulations, which require that what we are doing
to purchase is going to be the best value for the dollar, not going to
be something that supports a political agenda. What this amendment does
is to make sure that the best firearms are going to be procured to meet
the requirements of those who are procuring them without any political
pressure, to give preference to a company that has been coerced by the
Federal Government into agreeing to something to avoid a lawsuit which
would cost them a lot of money.
This could just be the first step. What next? Will the FBI and other
law enforcement agencies follow HUD if we permit this to go forward. I
would hope not, because I am sure that what every one of these agencies
wants, what every one of their members wants is the best firearm, the
safest firearm to protect them.
We cannot just legislate safety. Safety has to come from development.
And when that development is there, the first people who are going to
support this are the law enforcement officials themselves. They are now
opposing what is in this legislation. They are supporting this
amendment. That should send a clear message to us that the right vote
on this amendment is a yes vote.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, quickly in reference to what
the previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), said
before I enter into my formal remarks, the gentleman said we cannot
legislate safety. We do with automobiles. We decide what kind of sheets
and pillow cases infants sleep on.
We make sure that all sorts of precautions are taken every day for
the youngest among us, to ensure their safety. The argument we somehow
cannot legislate safety.
Let us be clear about the purpose of this amendment that is offered
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). His objective is very
simple and it is to put Smith & Wesson out of business.
I represent the city where Smith & Wesson is located. They
essentially are being punished for doing the right thing. This is sound
public policy, not policy that was put upon them. It was negotiated
after months of intense conversations back and forth.
What Smith & Wesson said in this historic agreement is this, and I
want everybody to listen to this, they want to change the way guns are
designed, distributed and marketed.
They want to add locking devices and other safety features, and they
wanted to develop landmark smart gun technology. We ask ourselves in
this Chamber who could be against all of that? Then we look to the
other side; and we see who could be against this sensible public policy
position, for their courage, Smith & Wesson is now being penalized by
the gun lobby, House Republicans who adamantly oppose common sense
safety legislation, legislation that the vast majority of the American
people overwhelmingly support. Every year, 30,000 Americans including
almost 12 children a day are killed by gun violence.
Why do Members of this House fear the advancement of smart gun
technology? Who could be opposed to the meaningful development of a
firearm that can only be used by its rightful owner, and who would
prevent children in the end from accidentally discharging these
weapons? Why are the people on the other side of the aisle in this
Chamber trying to thwart the unprecedented agreement between Smith &
Wesson and the Clinton administration.
Many times I have found myself on the other side of an initiative
that Smith & Wesson would not be comfortable with, but I want to tell
my colleagues something, they are a great employer. And that term Smith
& Wesson is synonymous over many, many years of American history with a
quality product that they, indeed, want to make better to speak to the
concerns of the American people.
It is no threat to the second amendment, which we frequently hear in
this Chamber, and the Clinton administration has proceeded with wise
and warranted public policy that speaks to the concerns of the American
people in advancing what most people would believe to be a highly
sensible initiative, smart gun technology, trigger locks.
But the idea that Smith & Wesson would enter into protracted
negotiations with the administration, come up with a marvelous solution
that we would think everybody in this Chamber could come to agreement
upon, they find themselves isolated. They find themselves set upon by
the gun lobby. They find themselves set upon by an element that wants
no sort of gun legislation in this country.
In the end, all of us this evening have an opportunity to vote up or
down on what is perhaps the most sensible initiative that has come
forth over many years on the whole question of how to deal with guns in
this society, and we will have a chance to be recorded later on, and
that is the vote that people ought to remember in November.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page 11797]]
Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some comments that have been
made by the other side in this argument, and that is that Congress
should not micromanage local law enforcement. I would agree with that
100 percent, but neither should HUD, and that is exactly what is
happening in this process; that is why this Congress is defunding the
micromanagement of local law enforcement by HUD through this amendment.
Secondly, the argument is made that Congress should not tie the hands
of local government, and that is not what this amendment does either.
This amendment merely states that Federal taxpayers will not give money
to HUD to micromanage local law enforcement. We are not saying, for
example, that if local government wishes to deprive their law
enforcement personnel of the best equipment and, therefore, compromise
the safety of their law enforcement officers and the public safety,
they are more than welcome to do so, I just do not believe and I think
a majority of this House does not believe that the Congress should be a
party to that.
Thirdly, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) just spoke just
said that as a result of this amendment, we are going to run Smith &
Wesson out of business. It could not be further from the truth. In
fact, Smith & Wesson will still be able to continue to compete and
potentially win contracts.
We simply do not believe there should be a preference in those
contracts; and if Smith & Wesson does indeed have the best product at
the best price, they will win these competitions and win these
contracts.
I would say to the gentleman with regard to that issue, if Smith &
Wesson is the only company that enters into this type of agreement,
which they are at this point, and they are the preferred contractor,
what incentive will be there for Smith & Wesson to create a better
quality product if there is no competition to obtain a higher quality
product? Smith & Wesson could quite simply produce a much lower quality
product as a result of a political agenda that is being forwarded and
not the consideration of law enforcement safety and public safety.
Smith & Wesson will get the agreement with the lower quality product.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a very common sensical amendment.
I think the Law Enforcement Alliance of America believes the same
thing. The Fraternal Order of Police believes this is common sensical,
and I would ask the majority of the House to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I am here to express my opposition to the
Hostettler amendment. To me, this is the most mean-spirited amendment I
have ever seen on this floor. It cuts to the chase. It prohibits the
Office of Housing and Urban Development from using funds to administer
HUD's Community for Safer Guns Coalition. What does the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) have against the Communities for Safer Guns
Coalition? I cannot figure it out.
First the gentleman was against every legislative mandate. The
gentleman is against it. Now, we do not have a mandate, what we are
saying is we have an agreement between the administration and a
company. We did not pass any legislation for the Clinton administration
to come to that agreement. This is something the gentleman should
support. The gentleman is proactive about it.
The Communities for Safer Guns Coalition keeps guns out of the hands
of criminals and children. I know the gentleman supports that. How can
the gentleman support this amendment? It closes the gun show loophole.
I do not know if the gentleman supports that. It cuts down on straw
purchasing. The gentleman supports that, do you not? It mandates full
background checks for all purchases.
I think these are important steps towards making our streets safer.
Does it take one gun away from anybody? One of the program's strengths
is that it starts in the community and stays in the community. This is
a movement of local and State leaders who have pledged to support
giving a preference in firearm purchases to companies who follow a code
of responsible conduct.
These advances that you have heard on the floor just a few moments
ago all help law enforcement by making guns less attractive to
criminals and making it harder for bad apple dealers to supply
criminals. After all the ATF reports that just 1.2 percent of dealers
account for 57 percent of gun crime traces to active dealers.
There is 411 communities at this point, at this very moment that have
signed on. A vote to stop the coalition is a vote to support less
responsible gun makers and less responsible dealers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge everyone of us to vote against this ill-
conceived amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully disagree with my colleague from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). I guess the gentleman can see the equation
from either side. I guess the way that I would see it, and some on this
side of the aisle would see it, would be that by prohibiting local law
enforcement agencies from choosing I guess the equipment or the gun
manufacture of their choice, it seems to me to be more coercive and it
seems to be a case rather than a local choice being made, it is
actually a case of being directed from above.
Two, I would say to me this is about the whole fundamental breakdown
of government that our Founding Fathers intended with the legislative
branch being responsible for one area of government, the executive
branch being responsible for another, and the judicial final for
another.
What we have here with this agreement is the executive branch going
into the business of creation of laws or lawmaking, because there are
two new Federal programs, the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition and
the Oversight Commission, both of which would be created by executive
branch activity without the authorization of Congress, without the
Hostettler amendment.
I simply rise in support of his amendment. Finally, I would make the
point in that they are legitimately different perspectives on this
thing, and I come from down South and I guess we have a different take
on the whole gun equation down there, but for me, I do not like the
idea of smart technology because the idea of an intruder breaking into
our house and my fingerprint being the only one that could stop that
intruder with a given handgun, to me is not a good idea.
I would like the idea of me being able to hand the gun to my daughter
or to my young son or to the neighbor who is visiting to help in
stopping that intruder. I think there is a legitimate difference of
opinion on this.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler amendment.
{time} 1900
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
be granted one additional minute.
Mr. WALSH. We have a very strict time agreement. I have to object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment because this amendment runs counter to what the American
people have repeatedly asked Congress to do, make our children and our
communities safer.
This amendment just does not make any sense. The Smith & Wesson
agreement includes common sense measures, like internal safety locks,
development of smart gun technology to ensure that only a gun owner can
discharge the firearm, child safety trigger locks, and
[[Page 11798]]
other provisions aimed at reducing the number of accidental shootings
and deaths due to gun violence. Smith & Wesson has also pledged to
cooperate with Federal, State and local law enforcement to ensure that
its products are used safely and legally.
Agreements such as these should be encouraged, not penalized. This
irresponsible amendment, in my judgment, sends the wrong message to
manufacturers trying to demonstrate their own accountability for the
safety of those who use their products.
Codes of conduct by firearm manufacturers will make our communities
and streets safer. They will strengthen law enforcement's efforts to
enforce our Nation's firearms laws by ensuring that background checks
are performed and improving ballistics technology; and they will
protect our children from the tragic accidental shootings that end far
too many innocent lives.
Congress should heed the call of the American people, who have told
us loud and clear that they support common sense initiatives to make
firearms safer and to keep them out of the hands of children. I urge my
colleagues, listen to your neighbors, listen to our friends. Let us
defeat this amendment.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that the naming of this coalition,
The Communities for Safer Guns Coalition, is simply a name given to it
by an entity which seeks to forward a political agenda. If the truth be
told, according to our correspondence from the Law Enforcement Alliance
of America and the Fraternal Order of Police, that have written the
Congress, a more appropriate name would probably be something like
this, and I apologize for its length. It would probably be The
Communities for Compromising Law Enforcement Personnel and Public
Safety in Order to Forward a Political Agenda Coalition. That is what
the true name of the coalition should be.
We should not forward that political agenda and we should not run
around with the intent of Congress by doing so. I would have to say I
will be offering an amendment subsequent to this discussion, Amendment
No. 25, that will actually talk about the Smith & Wesson agreement
itself. We have heard a lot of discussion about the Smith & Wesson
agreement, but this amendment is actually to stop HUD from creating
this environment of preferences for purchase of firearms for local law
enforcement.
The gentleman talked about various issues that we should all commonly
be opposed to, and he made some points; but some of the points that he
made were a little bit outdated in that the gentleman from New Jersey
said we should all be opposed to straw purchases. Straw purchases are
actually in opposition to Federal law today; and, in fact, we know a
young lady in connection to the Columbine tragedy actually made a straw
purchase and broke the law as it stands today.
So this agreement is not going to stop criminals that will break the
law anyway. That is why we call them criminals. It will simply create
an environment whereby local law enforcement agencies will feel
compelled to purchase equipment that may or may not be in their best
interests; and as a result of that, they may compromise not only the
safety of their personnel, which is heinous enough, but it would also
compromise the safety of the public at large.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, one thing I will say, this
is all voluntary. The coalition has come forward freely on this; and
this, in my opinion, will help and save police officers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised that the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) is offering amendments to weaken HUD's ability
to fight crime in our neighborhoods. The Republican leadership in the
House has done everything in its power to promote the NRA agenda. They
have killed the common sense gun safety measures that the American
people have demanded for over a year. They have blocked trigger locks
and failed to close the gun show loophole. They have blatantly ignored
the request of the Million Mom March for licensing and registration of
all handguns.
Now the Republicans are trying to prevent gun makers from making
safer products. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) wants to
prevent Smith & Wesson from developing safer guns with internal trigger
locks and safe gun technology. I guess the purpose must be the guns
should be as unsafe and dangerous as possible. It is truly
unbelievable.
Over 400 communities are participating in HUD's Communities for Safer
Guns Coalition, working to make our streets a little safer. Because of
their actions at local levels, Smith & Wesson agreed to require their
dealers to close the gun show loophole, require background checks for
all sales, limit the delivery of multiple purchases, limit children's
access to weapons, and a few other things to keep guns out of the hand
of criminals and children.
We should be doing everything we can to support these communities in
the struggle to limit gun violence. The Hostettler amendment is
actually worse than anything else the Republican leadership has
proposed this year in this respect. In the past, we were fighting for
additional protections to save our people from gun violence. Today, we
are fighting to preserve what little protections we have managed to
achieve already.
This is a dangerous proposal, and I fear the American people will pay
for it dearly in communities across the Nation. Secretary Cuomo and HUD
should be commended, and this amendment should be defeated.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the leadership
once again of the gentlewoman from New York.
I was surprised by this. We have debated gun regulation, and the
arguments have always been we should not interfere with the right of an
individual to own a gun. This has got nothing to do with that. What we
now see is that what we have got is an animus against trying to improve
gun technology.
This does not interfere with anybody's right to own a gun. This is
not an amendment; it is a dangling participle. It rewrites the second
amendment. The second amendment will now say, ``A well-regulated
militia being necessary for the security of the people, let's not have
any smart guns in local police forces.''
This is total disconnect between all of the previous arguments about
gun regulation. Individuals will be totally free to buy guns. What this
says is HUD will not coerce, but will work with and cooperate with
local police departments and local governments that want to purchase
safer guns.
It is not an accident that two of the previous speakers against this
amendment were former mayors of tough urban areas, who understand the
importance of law enforcement. This is a cooperative effort, and as my
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, said, there is an animus
against Smith & Wesson.
The gentleman from Indiana said, ``Well, you won't have competition
if this happens, because if Smith & Wesson gets a preference for
selling smart gun technology, where will the incentive be to improve
it?''
I will tell you where it will be, from all of the other
manufacturers. That is precisely what we want. We want to encourage a
competition for the best smart gun technology. One way you do that, one
way to increase that supply, is to increase the demand.
So what this is is a cooperative effort, led by HUD but fully
voluntary on the part of the cities, to increase the demand for smart
gun technology, knowing that that will lead to an increase in the
supply. I understand people's objections when individuals are
[[Page 11799]]
concerned, although I do not agree; but this can only be an objection
to the principles of safer guns.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Nadler:
At the end of title IV (relating to General Provisions),
add the following new section:
Sec. 426. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``INDEPENDENT AGENCIES--National Aeronautics and Space
Administration--human space flight'', and increasing the
amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT--Public and Indian Housing--housing certificate
fund (hcf)'' for use only for incremental assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f), by $344,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and I are
offering this amendment to increase funding to provide for 60,000 new
section 8 vouchers to help low-income families afford safe, decent
housing. The bill before us provides for zero new section 8 vouchers.
The need for housing assistance remains staggering. The Nation's
robust economic growth has sent housing prices soaring. Today, a record
5.4 million low-income families pay more than 50 percent of their
income for rent, or live in severely substandard housing. Not one of
these 5.4 million families receives any Federal housing assistance.
Their needs are desperate, and we must not ignore the severity of these
needs any longer.
I challenge anyone to argue that tenant-based section 8 vouchers do
not achieve their goals. The approximately 3 million families, that is
almost 7 million Americans, receive section 8 vouchers. For these
families, section 8 is more than a contract or a subsidy, it is often
the foundation upon which they can build lifelong economic self-
sufficiency. Section 8 allows families to enter the private housing
market and choose where they want to live, helping them to escape from
the cycle of poverty and creating better income mixes throughout our
communities. As was said yesterday, section 8 is a free-market approach
pioneered by the radical Nixon administration.
The bill in its current form does a terrible disservice to those most
in need. The administration's request for 120,000 new section 8
vouchers has been ignored, and there is not one dollar in this bill for
new vouchers to address the worst case housing needs of our most
vulnerable citizens. The bill merely holds out the possibility of
20,000 vouchers, unlikely to be funded since they are contingent on
overly optimistic levels of section 8 recaptures.
Rather than building on the successful provision of 50,000 or 60,000
incremental vouchers the past 2 years, this bill would contribute to
the growing backlog of families who cannot afford decent, safe and
sanitary housing, by going from 60,000 new housing vouchers last year
to zero this year, this at a time of incredible prosperity and huge
budget surpluses.
Let me mention one other point. Some may ask why we ought to provide
new housing for vouchers when existing funding is not spent quickly.
Why is desperately needed money not spent right away? The answer is
that the housing crisis is so severe right now that many families are
having real difficulty using vouchers because they cannot find any
apartments to rent that are affordable, that are within the limits of
the voucher.
The Federal Government should be doing more to build affordable
housing, but this bill actually reduces Federal assistance for
production of new low-income housing. But that is beyond the scope of
this amendment.
Our amendment will allow 60,000 more families to live in safe,
affordable, decent housing. It is not asking for much. We only ask that
we meet about 1 percent of the need for affordable housing in our
Nation.
The money is there. In fact 100,000 new section 8 vouchers have been
authorized for this coming fiscal year. The bill as currently written
reneges on the national commitment to create decent, affordable
housing, and fails to fulfill the promise Congress made to poor
families in the Housing Act of 1998, which authorized 100,000 new
section 8 vouchers for next year.
Mr. Chairman, we must house our people. We ought to fulfill that
promise and adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) claim the
time in opposition?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, which is a proposed reduction of $344 million, or a 20
percent cut, from the International Space Station budget. That is an
astounding cut and would cripple the program.
There are currently two elements of the Space Station in orbit. Most
of the remaining elements have been constructed and are in Florida
waiting for final testing. In the next few weeks, Russia is going to be
launching the third element of the Space Station, which will enable the
United States to move forward with launch and assembly of the station.
The reduction proposed by the amendment would severely disrupt the
revised assembly schedule and cause significant cost increases to the
program. Specifically, the cuts proposed by the amendment would result
in the following programmatic change: cancellation of the U.S.
Propulsion Module program, cancellation of the Crew Return Vehicle
Development program, and cancellation of logistics flight hardware
support.
{time} 1915
On the transfer to section 8, first of all, I am delighted to know
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is a fan of Richard
Nixon. I was not aware of that, and I am proud of his acknowledgment of
that fact. Very few people are willing to acknowledge that today.
Secondly, can we imagine if a Republican President had a housing
administration that, in effect, denied 237,000 Americans access to
housing vouchers. Can we imagine the outcry from the other side if a
Republican President had this terrible record of not providing 237,000
American citizens housing, funds appropriated by the Congress. It would
be unbelievable.
The fact of the matter is, we have provided and fully funded the
section 8 voucher program. If we put more money into that program with
this attack on the Space Station, it will not be spent. Over $1 billion
last year was provided to HUD for section 8 vouchers; they did not
spend it. The Administration came back, recaptured those funds and then
spent it somewhere else. We cannot continue to allow HUD to be the bank
for the Administration's priorities, especially at this late point in
the process. We cannot steal money from NASA, providing it to HUD, and
allow it to go unspent and then God knows where it goes in a
reprogramming.
So this is not a wise amendment. We have strongly supported section 8
[[Page 11800]]
vouchers. It is a Republican idea. We are proud of that fact. But let
us make it work better, I say to my colleagues on the other side. Let
us make this program work better to benefit all of those Americans out
there who need and deserve good housing.
So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the cosponsor of this
amendment.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to offer this amendment
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my esteemed colleague,
who has worked for many years on affordable housing issues.
Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest mistakes we can make during a time
of great prosperity is to turn our backs on those who have been left
out of the economic mainstream. This country is experiencing an
economic boom, the likes of which we have not seen in a generation. But
it would be a grave mistake to forget that many people have not been
included in this financial good fortune. It is times like this when it
is more important than ever to help with issues like this.
The last time the VA-HUD bill was being debated on the floor, I spoke
about the affordable housing emergency we were facing. Well, Mr.
Chairman, it is a year later, and the predicament in this country has
increased. One of the lifelines that low-income families count on is
the section 8 voucher program, and the bill before us today does not
allot one more dollar for new vouchers. This is not acceptable for the
harsh reality we are facing today.
During this debate, we will undoubtedly hear the argument, in fact,
we just did, that we do not need to fund additional section 8 vouchers.
We will hear that renewing expiring vouchers is enough. We might hear,
and, in fact, we did, that some fiscal year 2000 vouchers might be
recaptured; and we will hear that this is enough.
The truth is, though, and I would ask my colleagues to consider this,
there are over 12 million Americans, men, women and children, who are
considered to have worst-case housing needs. The average waiting period
for either a section 8 housing voucher or a space in a public housing
unit is over 2 years. We have all the proof that we need that
additional vouchers are desperately needed.
While it is true that there are some cases where there are recaptured
vouchers, that is not because there is not a need; it is because there
are technical problems that are now going to be fixed, we hope, within
rulemaking in HUD. But the truth is, these families who are waiting
over 2 years need section 8 housing vouchers.
Let me talk about my district, the First Congressional District of
Colorado, where rents have soared in the past 10 years as a result of a
red hot economy. Between 1995 and 1999, rents in the Denver area rose
more than 20 percent, growth matched only by that in the San Francisco
Bay area. There is great irony that the areas that are experiencing the
most economic growth are also the ones where working families are
priced right out of the housing market.
Affordable housing is not a problem that exists in a vacuum, and it
will negatively affect our economy if we do not ensure that all
Americans have effective housing. We need more section 8 vouchers, not
less.
Now, we have heard how much we need the Space Station; and I always
vote and, in fact, just voted a little while earlier this evening, to
support the Space Station, unlike many of my colleagues on this side of
the aisle.
However, if we have to make the choice between our citizens, our
lower-income citizens living in housing and having section 8 vouchers
and taking a little money away from the Space Station, the choice is
clear to me.
The international Space Station is $2.1 billion, and this offset is
$344 million. We do not kill the Space Station with this amendment.
Rather, what we say is, we will move it a little bit more slowly so
that we can give the millions of low-income Americans that need them
section 8 vouchers.
I say to my colleagues, the majority that wrote this bill have put us
in this situation of having to make this very real and very tough
choice; and the reason is because they put nothing in the bill to fund
the section 8 vouchers that are needed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Nadler-DeGette amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
point out to the gentlewoman that we put $13 billion in this bill for
section 8 vouchers.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would agree, I would assume,
that none of the money in the bill is for new section 8 vouchers.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we put in 10,000
additional vouchers by using the recapture money from last year.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
this time.
I would like to, in part, associate myself with the remarks of the
gentlewoman from Colorado. While I do not agree with her ultimate
position, I would suggest that the reason we are in this tough position
is because of the budget that the majority has come forward with and
the stingy allocation that it results in for not only this
subcommittee, but for all appropriation subcommittees.
That is what the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
the ranking member, has spoken to so eloquently throughout this
process, the fact that we have a budget agreement supported and written
by the majority which is totally unrealistic and totally inadequate
when we come over to the other part of the budget process, and that is
the appropriation process. That is why we do not have enough money in
this bill for vouchers and for NASA and for science research. That is
the problem that we are really confronted with; and we all can only
hope that as the process moves forward, we will get additional
allocation, and money will come; and certainly with the performance of
the economy, that is justified.
We do not need to starve domestic discretionary programs in this time
of prosperity. We do not need to have people in need of housing; we do
not need to have homeless that are not being cared for. We do not need
to choose between Space Station and the science programs and housing or
any other programs. So I wanted to agree with the gentlewoman. Except,
making the distinction that in our committee, given our allocation, I
really do want to compliment the chairman for doing the very best job
he could; and I know he looks forward to the day that we might get
additional allocation.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how much of my time I have used in
speaking to that, but I want to suggest that I have no disagreement
with the gentleman's objective of adding funding for incremental
section 8 housing vouchers, housing assistance vouchers. I know that
the chairman has supported that; and hopefully, as time goes forward
and we get that additional allocation, we can be more responsive to
that.
Unfortunately, my disagreement with the gentleman stems from his
proposition to cut the appropriation for human space flight. This is
the account that funds the Space Station and the Space Shuttle, and it
is hard to see how a cut of this proportion will not have a severe
impact on both of these programs.
His offering the amendment and the concerns expressed by the
gentlewoman from Colorado are just expressions of the frustration we
are all having in having to deal with a totally unrealistic budget
resolution. The inadequacies reflect themselves when we come to the
appropriations process.
So unfortunately, I am going to have to rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment, while still being supportive of the objective of
the amendments.
[[Page 11801]]
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the ranking minority member
of the subcommittee has quite cogently pointed out the fundamental
problem with this budget. I would say to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Walsh), although I am about to disagree with his most recent
arguments, that none of us have any criticism to make of the very good
job he did in a very bad situation. We believe he did the best he could
with what he was handed. What he was handed, probably the EPA should
not let anyone hand him, but he did not have any choice about that.
Now, the one thing that I disagree with that he said, suppose a
Republican President had a Secretary of HUD; can we imagine a
Republican President having a Secretary of HUD who handled the program
so badly. I do not have to imagine it. I remember Sam Pierce in the
golden days of Ronald Reagan, when Sam Pierce was the Secretary of HUD
for 8 years. Ronald Reagan thought he was a mayor, the only time he
apparently ever met him; and Sam Pierce was, to use a technical term,
disgraceful. He was incompetent, he enabled corruption. More people
from that administration went to prison for misuse of HUD. So the
notion that somehow we want to get back to the golden days of the
Republican administration of HUD is not persuasive.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the point that I was trying to make was,
there should be an outcry today also. As then, there should be now.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would
have to say to the gentleman if that was the point he was trying to
make, I do not understand why he made a totally different one.
I was quoting him when he said, if a Republican President did this,
we would have an outcry. A Republican President did much worse. In
fact, I think the current administration of HUD is doing a very good
job in difficult circumstances. I think there is a misperception about
the section 8 program.
The section 8 program is not one undifferentiated pile here in
Washington that is doled out from Washington. It is broken up, it is
allocated among thousands of jurisdictions, and the rate at which
section 8 is utilized depends on the jurisdictions, the administrative
efficiency in the jurisdictions, the rents that go up in the
jurisdictions, the difficulty that people have in those jurisdictions
of finding housing. I know of section 8 vouchers that have gone unused
in my own district because the rents have been so high. Indeed, there
is probably a logic in linking this to the Space Station, because
pretty soon it is going to be as about as expensive to live in parts of
Boston and San Francisco as it is to get them up there in the Space
Station.
The section 8 program is a decentralized program in its
administration, and the failure to have a 100 percent utilization rate
is inherent in the program. There are also, of course, situations where
people's incomes go up and there is more money, so we do not use as
much money for that; but there is a pattern with the distribution which
leads, in many cases, to vouchers not being used. I do not believe it
is possible to get 100 percent utilization. It is possible to get a
high rate, and the more vouchers we vote, the more vouchers we will get
in the hands of the people, given that there is an inevitable slippage
in a program administered in this fashion.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
{time} 1930
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is an uncomfortable position when we have to match
oranges and apples, and we have to stretch a penny for programs that we
advocate for. Let me also acknowledge that this debate on the
appropriations bill for VA-HUD has been one of the more civil debates,
because there is a lot of agreement on money issues. One is we need
more money for needed programs.
I happen to be a very strong supporter of what Section 8 vouchers do.
In fact, I was on the floor recently saying that the provision that
allows Section 8 vouchers to be utilized for the purchasing of homes is
a very important new feature of this housing program to allow low-
income to buy homes.
But I am saddened to rise to oppose this amendment because of the
$344 million that is taken out of the International Space Station. I
think this again raises the question, and I do not know if we will ever
get to do this, of separating out these independent agencies from these
very large programs like VA and HUD; not to say that these other
independent agencies are not important, but they have a narrow focus,
and their focus is important.
HUD is suffering from the fact that these other agencies have funding
and HUD does not have enough. However, the Space Station funding and
the NASA budget has been flat for almost 5 years. In fact, it has a
flat 5-year budget, to a certain extent.
The Space Station has been on an orderly funding cycle. It has
utilized the money efficiently. It is almost completed. It is a project
that most Americans would support or do support, believing that it does
provide the kind of research that we ultimately need in finding cures
for diabetes, heart disease, and stroke; and other difficult diseases,
so there is a viable role for the Space Station. It helps us with
creating work for the 21st century in the research that can be done
there.
This $344 million, 20 percent of its budget would literally kill that
program. This is not to say that there is not a need for Section 8
vouchers. I do recognize the need for Section 8.
Mr. Chairman, what I would hope is that we will find our way in
conference to be able to respond to the needs for affordable housing
for Americans. I will support that effort. That should be the
commitment of this House. But I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that to gut
an independent agency program that has been efficient and consistently
doing its job with the monies that have been allocated would be unfair
and would be ill-timed, at this time.
I support the Space Station. I unfortunately have to oppose this
amendment. I would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment, and
let's work together to pass a final VA-HUD bill that puts more money
for housing in the Conference Report.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Nadler-Degette amendment to
H.R. 4635, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.
We cannot squander this historic opportunity to invest in America's
future; if approved, this amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations
measure risks doing just that.
Despite the shortcomings of the VA-HUD appropriation measure, there
are some commitments that have been secured and need to be preserved.
Our ability to reach the stars is an important priority, which will
ensure that America remains the preeminent country for space
exploration.
Although this measure is destined to be vetoed in its current form, I
believe the $13.7 billion appropriation, $322 million (2%) less than
requested by the administration, could have been even more generous.
The Nadler-DeGette amendment seeks to appropriate $344 million for
120,000 Section 8 incremental (new) vouchers to provide assistance to
additional low-income families. Regrettably, the amendment offsets this
appropriation by slashing funding for the international space station
by an equal amount. Mr. Chairman, the adoption of such a funding
decrease for the international space station would essentially destroy
the program.
Although many of us would have clearly preferred to vote on a bill
that includes more funding for vouchers to provide assistance to low-
income families, the Veterans Administration and
[[Page 11802]]
National Science Foundation programs, such increases should not offset
the money appropriated for our international space station.
The measure provides $2.1 billion for continued development of the
international space station, and $3.2 billion for space shuttle
operations. We need to devote additional personnel at NASA's Human
Flight Centers to ensure that the high skill and staffing levels are in
place to operate the Space Shuttle safely and to launch, as well as
assemble the International Space Station.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud the Johnson Space Center and its many
accomplishments, and I promise to remain a vocal supporter of NASA and
its creative programs. NASA has had a brilliant 40 years, and I see no
reason why it could not have another 40 successful years. It has made a
tremendous impact on the business and residential communities of the
18th Congressional District of Texas, and the rest of the nation.
In closing, I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment and
the bill so that we can get back to work on a common sense measure that
invests in America's future, makes affordable housing a reality across
America, and keeps our vital NASA program strong well into the 21st
century.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise very enthusiastically to support the
Nadler-DeGette amendment to increase funding for incremental Section 8
housing vouchers.
President Clinton requested 120,000 new or incremental Section 8
housing vouchers to alleviate America's housing crisis. The majority's
2001 appropriations bill provides zero funding for new this-year
vouchers. Given America's shortage of affordable housing, this bill
should provide funding to expand the amount of Section 8 housing
assistance available to America's families.
I know that the gentleman from New York and the distinguished ranking
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), have both
spoken against this amendment because the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) did the best he could with what he had.
However, sadly, the budget figures that went into this produced a bad
result. As I have said over and over again in this appropriations
process, the reason so many great mathematicians come out of MIT is
that so many great mathematicians go into MIT. If we have a bad budget
allocation that goes into the bill, we can only come out with a bad
appropriations bill. That is just most unfortunate.
What is the need for this? This amendment adds 60,000 incremental
Section 8 housing vouchers, half of what the President requested, for a
total of $344 million. HUD estimates the need as being more than 4.4
million Americans who suffer worse-case housing needs, pay more than
half their income for rent, or are living in substandard housing.
This amendment will assist only a small percentage of those in worst-
case households. We should do more. Nonetheless, this amendment is very
important and would help low-income renters afford rental housing.
According to HUD's most recent 2000 State of the Cities report,
California is experiencing an inequitable economic growth and an
inequitable distribution of wealth. As the gentlewoman from Colorado
pointed out, we are having problems with our success. As our economy
flourishes, our housing costs rise, making problems for those who need
affordable housing. This amendment would go a long way to help them.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will work on the assumption that there is some
misunderstanding, as opposed to the direct attempt to confuse. I really
believe that. I think there is just some misunderstanding here.
It has been said twice now that there is no money in this budget for
new incremental vouchers. I will read from the bill, page 23 of the
bill, that says, ``Provided further, that of the total amount provided
under this heading, up to $60 million shall be made available for
incremental vouchers under Section 8 of the Act on a fair share basis
to those public housing authorities that have 97 percent occupancy
rate.''
Mr. Chairman, that translates into over 14,000 new, I would emphasize
new, Section 8 housing vouchers. So I understand that we have
disagreements over priorities, but we really have to deal on the floor
on the basis of fact. The facts are that we have provided $60 million
for new incremental vouchers to the tune of 14,000.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in the last 2 years we, this Congress, funded
respectively 50,000 new vouchers and 60,000 new vouchers, after a
number of years at zero. Now we are told we are going back to zero.
The Administration requested 120,000 new Section 8 vouchers. The bill
provides none. The amendment asks for 60,000. We are told that the bill
does provide for new vouchers from recaptures. The fact is, the
expected amount of recapture money available is already anticipated in
the bill and has been given to four other priorities before new Section
8 vouchers, so we do not expect that there will be any new substantial
amount of money from those recaptures available for new vouchers,
number one.
Number two, there are millions and millions of people at need. We
should be doing hundreds of thousands, and even if some of that money
is recaptured, it is not nearly sufficient for the need.
Now we are told we should not take this money, 16 percent, we should
not reduce the budget for the Space Station by 16 percent in order to
provide half as many new vouchers as the administration requested. I
voted against the Space Station, so I cannot say I would like to see
the money given.
But the fact is, even if Members support the Space Station, a 16
percent reduction will not materially delay it. It is certainly worth
providing 60,000 people with decent housing.
Mr. Chairman, I will also say that this is a decentralized program.
Not every local housing authority is tremendously efficient. Therefore,
they do not use every one. Also, very often when people get a Section 8
voucher it takes them months to find housing within the limits, or
maybe they cannot even afford it. That is why money is not spent,
necessarily. It does not mean we do not need the money.
I would urge that we adopt this amendment and provide the money we
need.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman rhetorically
if he would rather have the Administration use those recaptured funds
for Kosovo, like they did last year?
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I am not here to defend the
Administration, whatever it uses or does not use recaptured funds for.
I am simply saying, 60,000 new Section 8 units, even if we could
recapture some and get 10,000 more, that is little enough, a piddling
sum. We should not be in the position of having to choose between the
Space Station and 60,000 new vouchers.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon), and then I will close.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand
very well the gentleman's concerns from New York City, but if we take
this amount of money out of the Space Station program, we are
effectively going to kill it. This program is operating on absolutely
no margin. It has been cut repeatedly by this Congress.
We have a load of hardware built and ready to fly. The Russian module
was supposed to launch next month. The missions are essentially stacked
up.
[[Page 11803]]
Cutting this amount of money in my opinion is going to be potentially
lethal to the program. The gentleman has admitted that he voted against
the Space Station, so a cutting amendment like this that is going to
kill it I am sure is no offense to him.
Might I just add, I understand there are some legitimate issues in
housing, but I believe HUD is being plussed up $4 billion in this VA-
HUD bill that we are taking up today. NASA has been declining for the
past 7 years. I would support the chairman on this issue.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would strongly urge we reject this amendment. The
Space Station is ready to go. This 20 percent cut in the program would
kill the program, and all the science and good will that goes with the
program.
It is a very important program. As I mentioned earlier, we have young
people all over the world who will participate in this. Seeing their
parents and their countries cooperating globally to conduct a major
science project is an inspiration.
We need to inspire young people today, especially certainly towards
idealism and altruism, but also towards math and science, which is what
this program is all about.
Lastly, to take the funds out of a program that needs the money and
put it into a program that is, for all intents and purposes, fully
funded is a mistake. So I would strongly urge that we reject this
amendment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Nadler/DeGette
Amendment to increase funding for new Section 8 housing vouchers.
HUD estimates that over 5.4 million low-income renter families spend
more than half of their incomes on housing or live in severely
substandard housing. This bill would contribute to the growing backlog
of families who can't afford decent, safe and sanitary housing.
In New York City we are experiencing a severe shortage of affordable
housing. The need for the Section 8 vouchers is so overwhelming that
the New York City Housing Authority closed the waiting list for this
program in December of 1994. No other applications have been accepted
for 66 months. Yet despite this drastic measure, as of January 1st of
this year, there were still 215,385 families on the Section 8 waiting
list in New York City.
We are experiencing a housing crisis in our nation's urban
communities. Section 8 vouchers serve as a safety net for thousands of
working families. The Nadler/DeGette Amendment ensures that this safety
net continues to be available. In a time of unprecedented economic
prosperity, it is shameful to continue to ignore the basic needs of our
poorest citizens.
I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the Nadler/
DeGette Amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendments offered by the gentleman from New York. Quite simply, they
threaten our long-term future. This amendment will transfer $344
million out of NASA's Human Space Flight account and put it in HUD's
Section 8 program.
The space program is part of our national science and technology
enterprise. We all know that our current economy owes much of its
success to forty years of federal investments in science and
technology. That federal effort generates the pre-competitive
breakthroughs in science and technology that make day-to-day
applications possible in the future. Because that benefit is long-term,
most of us will not be in this Chamber to see the benefits of the
decisions we make today, just as the Members who nurtured our science
and technology program forty years ago have left this body to enjoy the
political benefits of their support for the space program. Thus,
there's little political payoff in advocating science and technology.
That's why science and technology demand statesmanship and long-term
vision. Federal investments serve the good of the country and the
future of our grandchildren. Fortunately, this Chamber has repeatedly
demonstrated the long-term vision needed for our nation's science and
technology programs in space. It did so last year by rejecting similar
amendments and preserving funding for the space program. It should do
so again this year, by maintaining the space program as a high priority
and voting against the Nadler amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Nadler-DeGette Amendment to appropriate $344 million for 60,000 section
8 incremental (new vouchers) to provide housing assistance to low
income families.
First of all Mr. Chairman, we know that the overall appropriation
recommended for VA-HUD is too low, which forces us into an either-or
situation. Either we shortchange some of the pressing needs which are
most immediate, or we delay development of new horizons and new
opportunities like space exploration; and I tell you Mr. Chairman, I,
like countless others want to see us is space as much, as often and in
as many ways as we can possibly be. But, Mr. Chairman, I also recognize
that there are thousands of people in my district alone who live in
dilapidated buildings with vermin, termites, and hopelessness all
around them. I know that there are more than 165,000 people in my
district who live at, or below the poverty level and I know, I know Mr.
Chairman that they need relief; they need help, they need a chance to
live decently and they need it now.
I met last week with a group of residents at Boulevard Commons on the
Southside of Chicago. Boulevard is a project based section 8 program
where the building is going to be vacated because of need for repair.
They are frustrated, filled with uncertainty, and not sure about what
their future will be. I am also working with a group of senior citizens
on the near Northside of Chicago at Neighborhood Commons where they are
being told that they no longer have section 8, one can imagine the
consternation being experienced by this group.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this Amendment to add 120,000
new section 8 vouchers for low-income families.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hostettler
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development may be used
to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the
settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith &
Wesson and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(among other parties).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 20,
2000, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and a Member opposed
each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, on April 7 I joined with 62 other Members in a
bipartisan fashion to write to the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA,
HUD and Independent Agencies and the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal
Service and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations to
ask that they prohibit HUD and the BATF from using taxpayers' money to
implement a settlement agreement entered into between HUD and Smith &
Wesson.
As we said in our letter, this settlement agreement sets terms for
the continued operation of Smith & Wesson that affect many retail
customers and wholesale distributors. This agreement has been widely
touted in the media as an agreement for Smith & Wesson to include
trigger locks with the firearms they sell.
In reality, however, this agreement is much, much more. This 22-page
settlement agreement requires Smith & Wesson to implement gun control
measures, and for Smith & Wesson to require their dealers to implement
the same gun control measures. Smith & Wesson received in exchange
HUD's promise not to sue.
The last time I checked, Mr. Chairman, the Congress is the
legislative body of the United States government. I suppose former
Labor Secretary Robert Reich was prophetic in his statement in USA
Today when he said in
[[Page 11804]]
February of 1999, ``The era of big government may be over, but the era
of regulation through litigation has just begun.''
Let me give a few examples of this new regulation, or, more properly
defined as legislation, contained in this agreement. Keep in mind that
this body did not agree to these provisions, and in some cases we have
rejected similar provisions.
Also keep in mind that in the agreement, Smith & Wesson agrees to
bind all those dealers who wish to sell Smith & Wesson products to the
restrictions in the agreement. In other words, Smith & Wesson dealers
must include the following restrictions on all firearms sales,
regardless of make. This includes Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, Colt,
and so on.
In order to continue selling Smith & Wesson products, dealers must
agree to, one, impose a 14-day waiting period on any purchaser who
wants to buy more than one firearm; again, all makes. Did Congress
authorize such a restriction?
Two, transfer firearms only to individuals who have passed a
certified safety examination or training course. Once again, all makes
are covered. Did Congress authorize this restriction?
Three, the agreement authorizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms to sit on an oversight commission to enforce provisions of the
coerced agreement. When did Congress authorize the BATF to enforce
private civil settlement agreements?
{time} 1945
Four, this agreement requires the BATF or an agreed upon proofing
entity to test firearms. Did we do this in this Congress?
Five, the agreement mandates that Smith & Wesson commit 2 percent of
their revenues to develop authorized user technology and within 36
months, not immediately, 36 months to incorporate this technology in
all new firearm designs.
I would say as an aside, with regard to the debate that happened
concerning my previous amendment, some speaker said that this would
happen immediately. But, in fact, the agreement says that 36 months
from now this must happen.
It appears HUD likes unfunded mandates. Did Congress authorize this
unfunded mandate? I could go on and on, but time prevents me from doing
so.
What is the result of this legislation through litigation tactic
employed by HUD? Well, a few days ago, Smith & Wesson announced that it
would shut down two of its plants for a month, leaving 500 workers with
an unscheduled vacation. But is this not really what HUD wants? We
should not allow HUD to legislate through litigation.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, to take the power of
legislation out of HUD's hands, and return it where the Constitution
requires, the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy)
claim the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler) references the problems that Smith & Wesson is facing as a
result of, not HUD's activity, but retaliation against an industry
leader that has been willing to be courageous in being part of a long
overdue effort to reduce gun violence in America. A part of the
retaliation is here on the floor today.
For far too long, we have drug our feet in simple common sense steps
to make gun safety a part of an overall strategy. Things like trigger
locks, gun lockboxes, smart weapon technology, making a better gun is a
prudent thing to do.
One out of six of our law enforcement officers who die in the line of
duty are killed with their own service revolver. But it is not good
enough for the gentleman from Indiana. He wants to try and gut the
amendment to make real progress towards eliminating this problem. This
is using the private sector to produce safer weapons, have a code of
conduct that would help end the scandal that we have in this country,
that there are more consumer protections for water pistols than for
real guns, that this Congress has the courage to make an asprin bottle
difficult for a 2-year-old to open, but this Congress does not have the
courage to make that hard for that 2-year-old to kill his baby sister.
This amendment is a disgrace. I have in the foyer of my office a
picture of Kevin Imel, a young child of a friend of mine who was killed
by a classmate in an angry moment. It is time for us to put faces on
the million Americans who have been killed by gun violence since I
started my public service career. It is time for us to stand up to the
tyranny of the gun lobby and the people who would pander to them, and
we can start by rejecting this amendment tonight.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, if there is retaliation that is
going on as a result of the agreement that Smith & Wesson has taken
place, if the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) would talk to his
constituents, he would find out who it is doing that, and that is gun
owners, gun purchasers, or his constituents who do not want Smith &
Wesson to bring in more gun control through the back door by
legislating through the executive branch.
I would say with regard to the comment of the gentleman from Oregon
about law enforcement, having the ability to use proper guns, I think
the gentleman has probably seen the news clip of Governor Glendening's
attempt to try to get a firearm to become unlocked so that the Governor
could use it. The Governor was unable to do so. I am afraid it was very
possible that a police officer would likewise run into similar
situations on the job.
Likewise, the gentleman from Oregon said that there is more
regulation for a squirt gun than for the purchase of a real gun. Well,
that is intriguing. My 3-year-old recently purchased a squirt gun. I
should say his mother did. It was not a straw purchase. But his mother
purchased a squirt gun for him. In doing so, my 3-year-old son did not
have to fill out paperwork asking if he had committed a crime or if he
was an alien of the United States of America. So I am not quite sure
that that is accurate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler). He is highly principled and has the courage to do what I
think is clearly right by the people of the United States in offering
this amendment. The points that he has made I agree with completely.
The Clinton administration and the liberals could not get through the
Congress what they wanted to, so they tried to do it through a
settlement using the power of the Government, suing the gun
manufacturer, and then securing a whole raft of restrictions entered
into supposedly voluntarily as part of the settlement. It affects the
gun rights of everyone. I just think it is terribly misplaced.
I hope we approve the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana that
will, in essence, gut the settlement, because it deserves to be set
aside. If we are going to enact legislation or policies of this type,
then bring them here to the Congress of the United States. Let us
debate them and let the people's Representatives make the decision
about this rather than simply having this done off to the side in the
secrecy of settlement agreements that are entered into.
The thing that bothers me the most, though, Mr. Chairman, is this
constant focus of liberals on the gun, the instrumentality, rather than
on the people who are misusing the instrumentality. I mean, we have
seen this time and
[[Page 11805]]
time and time again. It is just a diversionary tactic because it is
covering up the fact that, under the Clinton administration, Federal
prosecution of gun crimes has dropped precipitously.
When we had a great program that we knew worked, like Project Exile
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we tried to expand that to the
rest of the country, the administration would not do it. Only this year
under extreme pressure did they finally have to relent and start that
program in other parts of the country where we have seen dramatic
reductions in gun violence because the Federal Government, through the
U.S. attorney in cooperation with local law enforcement, is prosecuting
vigorously and to the fullest extent of the law the misuse of a
firearm.
That is the direction we ought to be heading in, punishing the misuse
of the firearm, not trying to achieve through stealth, in my judgment,
what cannot be done by getting a majority of the House and Senate to go
along with these very same policies when they are put to a vote here.
The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has a great amendment. I
hope people support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from
New York for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her leadership.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to be a little extreme to suggest that the
Clinton administration that spear-headed the passage of the Brady bill
that has caused thousands of criminals not to have guns in their hands
and the passage of the ban on assault weapons.
But I rise in opposition to this amendment, because I do not believe
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) understands the premise of
what he intends to do. The Housing and Urban Development had every
right to make a freestanding contract with Smith & Wesson, and that is
what they did.
The retaliation comes from the underlying advocacy and opposition to
the agreement by the National Rifle Association. But to encourage a gun
manufacturer to have trigger locks and to be able to adhere to a code
of conduct that would help close gun show loopholes so that children 6
years old do not kill children and that a distraught young man does not
kill his teacher, I think HUD should be applauded. Smith & Wesson
should be applauded.
This amendment should be voted down. We should go on with the
business of saving lives in America.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I respond to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) in her assertion that I do not understand what I am doing. I think
I understand what I am doing perfectly well, and that is reasserting
the Congress' authority under article I, section 1 of the Constitution;
and that simply states that all legislative powers shall be vested in a
Congress.
When HUD entered into the settlement agreement with Smith & Wesson,
creating all these gun control measures that not only affect Smith &
Wesson's relationship to its dealers and to its customers, but the
relationship of all gun manufacturers, all retailers, all customers in
every transaction, that it takes place in an authorized dealer of Smith
& Wesson, they did take a back door to the legislative process.
It is my desire, through this amendment, to once again reassert the
legislative prerogative of this body; and that is to have the people's
House determine what the legislation should be, what the direction of
course should be in this policy-making arena, and not to allow
unelected bureaucrats to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman very much for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it is most unfortunate and unwise to sit here on the
floor and hear all of the rhetoric from the proponents of this
amendment try to align its substance as being anti-Clinton and anti-
liberals. When children pick up guns, they are not political. They do
not know who manufactures a gun. They do not know whether or not it has
a trigger lock on it. They just know they pull the trigger.
I think it is most unfortunate, given the outbreak of violence around
this country where innocent people have died at the hands of an
innocent person until they pull the trigger, it would be most
unfortunate if we supported this amendment.
I want to applaud Smith & Wesson, even though I am not a gun owner
and a gun user, for exerting corporate responsibility. That is what it
is.
If my colleagues adopt the Hostettler amendment, with all deference
to the gentleman from Indiana, if my colleagues adopt his amendment,
however, it would have a chilling effect on other companies who are
willing to take steps in the right direction in promoting gun safety.
We talk about the bureaucracy in the Clinton administration and Big
Brother government; but as I recall, even before I got here, we talked
a lot about public safety, air bags in automobiles, safety belts in
cars, to keep people from dying accidently.
We talk about imposing training on people when people have to be
trained to even get their license to drive an automobile, which if used
recklessly and wantonly, will kill people.
We require airline pilots who take the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hostettler) and I back and forth to Indiana on a weekly basis, to have
a certain amount of training. I would hate for us to get on an airline
with an untrained pilot. We both would be in trouble regardless whether
we are Democrat or Republican or conservative or liberal.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a defeat, respectfully, of the amendment of the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support today of the
Hostettler amendments, both this one and the one that we debated
earlier.
I want to just stop for a minute and take a look at our country.
Every single day, there are men and women in our country that get up,
most of the time they are in uniform, fire fighters, police officers,
men and women in the military, and they get up, they button their
uniform on; and when they do that, they are saying to us, today I will
die if I need to to protect your freedom.
Well, we owe those people something. If the Communities for Safer
Guns Coalition gets everything that they want, then what they are doing
is they are taking the maximum security that those people could have
away from them.
We would never in this body attempt to regulate the kind of ropes
that fire fighters might be able to use while they do their job to try
to save their life. We would never ask for lower quality guns and
ammunition or tanks for our military people just because it was the
political action of the day or the political discussion of the day.
So why should we, why should we take the right of chiefs of police in
local communities away from them to get the equipment that they think
gives their force the greatest possibility of survival, God forbid they
should come into a situation where they needed to use that equipment,
where they needed to use those weapons.
{time} 2000
That is unthinkable. And that is really what the Communities for
Safer Guns Coalition is about. It is about diminishing the safety of
those people who say they will die for us if they have to do that. It
is not about saving lives.
Let me talk about the other issue, of whether or not we should be
spending
[[Page 11806]]
Federal funds to implement and enforce the agreement with Smith &
Wesson. As my colleagues know, I represent the great State of Wyoming.
I am a gun owner. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the
State of Wyoming, and I do. I am trained in the use of this gun. I am
trained in the use of rifles. My husband and I together trained our
children. We took them hunting. We took them target practicing. We
taught them to respect what a gun is and to respect the way to handle
it. And we also taught them to respect the law and that if they did not
respect the law and obey the law, there would be consequences to pay.
Well, what this administration needs to do with their time and with
their money is to enforce the laws that we have and make sure that
people who break the law using guns suffer the consequences. President
Clinton brags that about 540,000 felons who tried to purchase weapons
illegally were prevented from doing so under the Brady bill. Do my
colleagues know how many of those people were prosecuted? Fewer than
200.
I would say that if the President really wants to stop death and
violence, that he should see to it that we start punishing criminals,
locking them up, and letting law-abiding citizens own their guns, be
responsible, and protect themselves.
In Australia, just lately, not too long ago, the government took the
guns away from all the citizens. The crime rate skyrocketed because
only the criminals have guns. I want to have a gun, to be able to
defend myself or defend my family. But most of all I want to defend the
Constitution of the United States of America. I want to defend not just
the second amendment but all of them, and I ask my colleagues to vote
in favor of the Hostettler amendment so that we can do that.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. First of all, in response to my friend from
Wyoming, the number of arrests and prosecutions are up significantly
since 1992. They are obviously not adequate enough, but if we had more
BATF enforcement officers, that would help that situation.
Certainly public safety officers are not endangered when they can
obtain guns, when they are licensed, when they are trained. And I would
think many of them would like to have a child safety lock on their gun
when it is at home and their kids might have access to it.
But, Mr. Chairman, I want to try to paraphrase from Dante's Inferno.
He talks about the fact that the lowest level and the depths of hell is
reserved for those who, knowing the difference between good and evil,
choose not to become involved, thereby letting evil prevail. In fact,
Rabbi Saperstein, in his letter to all of us, urging rejection of the
Hostettler amendment, quotes Leviticus and Jewish tradition that we
should not sit idly by the blood of our neighbors.
How can we not get involved when more than a dozen kids a day are
dying of firearms. Maybe we do not believe that. Maybe we do not care,
because most of those deaths are in urban minority low-income
communities. When it happens in a white suburban middle-class community
we read about it at least. Or maybe we do not even read about it; maybe
we do not care about it. But the fact is we ought to do something about
it. It is wrong. These children are losing their lives because guns are
all over the place. They are pervasive in our society, and that is
wrong.
When 411 communities try to get together to do something about it, to
try to protect the kids in their communities, what do we do? We try to
stop them. We do not let them get away with that interfering. Let us
see what constructive alternatives our colleagues have, because what we
are doing today is not enough: 300,000 deaths, a dozen kids a day. Show
us what those on the other side of the aisle would do about it, more
than rhetoric.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would simply call to point that this is a very passionate debate
that has taken place tonight, and that is exactly what the framers of
the Constitution intended to happen. They intended to have passionate
debate on issues relating to things as important not only as the second
amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, that shall not be
infringed, but as well the ability for the legislative branch to
maintain its prerogative to do just that, and that is to legislate.
What this amendment will do is simply stop the legislative activity
on the part of the administration in this one small particular area so
that the gentleman from Virginia, the gentlewoman from New York,
everyone else involved in this debate can have that passionate debate;
and they can have that passionate debate based on the understanding of
the Constitution, public safety, and all other things, separation of
powers, Federalism and all that, according to what the legislation
should be and what their elected representatives should do.
These people in HUD, the BATF, they are there to faithfully execute
the laws of the United States. They are not there to faithfully create
the laws of the United States. That is what they did in this agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I simply ask for Congress to once again assert our
legislative prerogative. Defund this agreement. And if the other side
wants to create another debate about gun control, they can do that. But
that should happen in the halls of this building, the Congress, and not
behind closed doors in the bureaucracy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take my time, this 1
minute, to commend the gentlewoman from New York for her extraordinary
leadership and her extraordinary courage. She has become the
personification in this country of gun safety, and to the mothers and
families of America she is a leader and a source of hope and
inspiration.
It seems the least we can do here, out of respect for the concerns
that parents in America have about gun safety, is to defeat the
Hostettler amendment. This amendment, and the one that preceded it
earlier regarding the coalition, are really unnecessary and they fly in
the face of incremental and reasonable and common sense attempts to
protect our children from guns.
This code of conduct really should be serving as a model; and,
instead, this House of Representatives is considering eliminating it,
taking a step backward. Who can oppose the idea of HUD engaging in an
agreement for a code of conduct for gun safety?
HUD should be commended, the gentlewoman from New York should be
commended, and we should defeat the Hostettler amendment.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time and for her extraordinary leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. Why are we attacking companies
trying to do the right thing? This amendment would defund the
settlement reached between Smith & Wesson and HUD to reduce handgun
violence. Smith & Wesson agreed to develop safer handguns, install
child safety locks, and to sell only to vendors who require background
checks. All reasonable, common sense gun safety actions.
We have, Mr. Chairman, over 13 young people dying each day due to gun
violence. We have children killing children. I guess protecting
children is just too much to ask. This amendment prevents Smith &
Wesson and other responsible companies from working to make our
communities safer. This amendment will do nothing but appease the NRA
and some members of the gun industry.
I urge a ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
[[Page 11807]]
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the Hostettler amendment is another
example of how far out of step the Republican leadership is with the
American people. They refuse to move ahead with gun safety legislation,
and now they have gone out of their way to punish Smith & Wesson simply
because Smith & Wesson wants to include a child safety lock with their
handgun. It is mind-boggling.
Further, they would gut the Communities for Safer Guns Coalition.
This is 411 cities and towns across the country who have agreed to
purchase handguns for their police officers from gun makers that agree
to include child safety locks with the guns they sell and to keep a
close eye on the gun dealers that sell to criminals.
Let me tell my colleagues that if they vote for this amendment, if
they support it, they turn their backs on the values of this country
and on the American people. This is the people's House. Overwhelmingly
this country wants to see gun safety legislation. And what is more,
those who vote for this amendment will be living up to the old saying
that ``no good deed goes unpunished.'' They will be telling people that
they not only oppose mandatory child safety locks but they are going to
punish companies who voluntarily include child safety locks with their
guns.
What is next? Shall we punish car manufacturers who make safe cars,
pharmaceutical companies that put child safety locks on aspirin
bottles? Smith & Wesson, my colleagues, have done the right thing. They
have agreed to include a child safety lock with the guns they sell.
They have agreed to help ensure that dealers who sell their guns will
only sell to law-abiding citizens. We should be thanking them. Instead,
the gun lobby and the Republican leadership of this House want to
prevent local efforts to make our communities, our neighborhoods safer,
and to punish the gun makers that act responsibly.
This is so wrong, it is unbelievable. We should reject this kind of
revenge by legislation. Let us defeat the Hostettler amendment tonight.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is
remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we are having this debate on this bill,
and I would like to clarify a couple of points. First of all, our staff
has checked and, according to HUD's records and their budget office,
there are no funds being spent to implement this agreement. The
administration has not requested funds for this purpose, and the bill
does not include those funds. Consequently, the amendment really has no
practical impact on HUD and is, therefore, unnecessary.
The problem is, for us, with this bill, it creates real difficulties.
It creates a diversion away from the real issues of the bill. Much like
the Kyoto debate on report language, we are trying to anticipate what
the administration might do when no funds are actually being expended.
So I would urge that Members vote against this amendment. It really
is not, in my mind, germane to this bill; and for that reason, I would
urge a ``no'' vote.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, obviously, I stand against this amendment for many
reasons. Unfortunately, we have heard an awful lot, in my opinion, on
not understanding exactly what the agreement was. We have heard Members
talking about gun control. This is not gun control. It is not even near
gun control. What we are talking about is child safety, safety and
guns. And our police officers across this Nation certainly have the
opportunity to either reject or not accept this agreement when they buy
their guns.
Let me say something to my colleagues. Across this Nation all of our
communities, all of our cities are trying to figure out how to reduce
gun violence in this country. Secretary Cuomo, with HUD, has come up
with an agreement with Smith & Wesson, which has taken on the
responsibility of trying to make safer guns. Not eliminate guns, make
safer guns. Safer guns for our police officers and certainly,
hopefully, safer guns for our citizens.
{time} 2015
Yes, they want background checks. Well, I think almost everybody
should agree that we do not want to sell guns to criminals, so people
should go for background checks. Smith & Wesson has agreed to do this.
Guns cannot be marketed to children.
Wow, that is some sort of gun control, is it not? Guns cannot be
marketed to children. The smart guns again.
We talk about using taxpayers' money. My colleague from New York (Mr.
Walsh), the chairman, has said no monies have been appropriated for
this. But let me tell my colleagues what we spend on health care in
this country every single year because of gun injuries in this country.
It is over $2 billion a year.
If our communities and certainly the housing that we are putting
people in can be made safer, that is what we should be doing. This is
not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. As far as I am
concerned, this is part of a health care issue. Smith & Wesson,
certainly Secretary Cuomo of HUD, have tried to do something to try to
make this country safer. I applaud him for this.
I wish we could get past this thing of gun control. There is not one
person, not one person, in this Congress that is trying to take away
the right of someone owning a gun. That is something everyone should
start to remember. I am tired of hearing that. I will never try to take
away the right of someone owning a gun. That is not what I am here for.
But I am certainly trying to keep health care costs down. I am
certainly trying to save lives.
I think that Smith & Wesson has done the right job, and I say let us
support them for a change.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey); amendment No. 35, as modified, offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hinchey); the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins); amendment No. 24 offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler); amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler); amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Hinchey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 23 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by the voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
[[Page 11808]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 277, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 303]
AYES--145
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Camp
Capuano
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
English
Ewing
Fattah
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gilman
Goodling
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Horn
Houghton
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Larson
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McGovern
McHugh
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Petri
Pitts
Porter
Quinn
Reynolds
Rivers
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stabenow
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Terry
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
NOES--277
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McDermott
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Kuykendall
McCollum
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Tauscher
Thornberry
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2040
Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. CLAYTON, Messrs. REGULA, BROWN
of Ohio, WATKINS, DIXON, MORAN of Virginia, VISCLOSKY, RAHALL, and
RAMSTAD changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. WELLER, HYDE, HULSHOF, COSTELLO, LEVIN, CRANE, Ms. KAPTUR,
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. ENGLISH changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 525, the Chair announces
that it will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Hinchey, As Modified
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey),
as modified, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208,
noes 216, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 304]
AYES--208
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
[[Page 11809]]
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--216
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Kuykendall
McCollum
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2048
Mr. PEASE and Mr. BARR of Georgia changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 199, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 305]
AYES--225
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frost
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Ramstad
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Cook
DeLay
Kuykendall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2056
Messrs. WALSH, DEUTSCH, WELLER and CALVERT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. OSE, WELDON of Pennsylvania, SKELTON, CLYBURN and STUPAK
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
[[Page 11810]]
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Hostettler
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 207, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 306]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Fowler
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Rahall
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Kuykendall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2104
Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SMITH of Texas and Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138,
noes 286, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 307]
AYES--138
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Duncan
Engel
English
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hefley
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moore
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Porter
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rivers
Roemer
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Woolsey
NOES--286
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
[[Page 11811]]
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Horn
Kuykendall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2111
Mr. GEJDENSON and Mr. KLINK changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hostettler
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 219, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 308]
AYES--206
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeMint
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Fletcher
Fowler
Gekas
Gibbons
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Rahall
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--219
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
[[Page 11812]]
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Kuykendall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2118
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001''.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my grave concern with the
bill before us today. This bill critically underfunds important
national priorities that are too numerous to mention.
Many members of this House have expressed their concern about the
federal government's chronic failure to meet its commitment to special
needs kids. Yet, this bill provides just $6.6 billion in funding for
special education, $514 million over last year's funding but far short
of the $16 billion-plus we need to fulfill this longstanding commitment
to our most vulnerable children.
Mr. Speaker, I have a school in my district where exposed wires
dangle from the ceiling, and rainwater seeps over those wires, but this
bill provides no funds to repair collapsing schools. Never mind that
more than 200 of my colleagues have heeded the call of their school
districts, who are begging for assistance repairing schools.
53.2 million kids--a national enrollment record--started school in
1999 and 2.2 million teachers will be needed in the coming years to
teach them what they need to know. The teacher shortage is an imminent
national crisis, yet this bill includes no funds to continue the class
size reduction initiative that is putting 100,000 new teachers in our
schools.
Mr. Chairman, we know that quality early childhood programs for low-
income children can increase the likelihood that children will be
literate, employed, and educated, and less likely to be school
dropouts, dependent on welfare, or arrested for criminal activity. This
bill, however, cuts the President's request for Head Start by $600
million, which denies 53,000 low-income children the opportunity to
benefit from this comprehensive child development program.
Tragically, our country has become desensitized to school violence
accustomed to reports of shootings in schools. School shootings are no
longer front page news! Yet, this bill eliminates assistance for
elementary school counselors that serve more than 100,000 children in
60 high-need school districts that could intervene and identify
troubled kids before they harm themselves, their classmates or their
teachers.
Earlier this week, I supported a bill to relieve the estate tax with
great reservation I have long been a supporter of responsible estate
tax relief that maintains our national commitments--paying down the
national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and supporting
important domestic priorities such as the ones I have listed here. The
leadership of this House, however, gave us one vehicle for estate tax
relief, and I supported it with the hope that the Senate and the
conference committee will craft a fiscally responsible compromise.
Today, however, I am faced with this bill that turns its back on our
nation's number one priority--our kids. The leadership of this House
expects a veto of this irresponsible bill. I am voting against this
bill today and I ask my colleagues to do the same. We then can return
to the drawing board and craft a fiscally responsible bill that
reflects our priorities as a nation.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the
increase in funding included in this measure for many veteran's
programs. One of my most important duties as a Member of Congress, and
one of which I am most proud, is to honor the men and women who have
served our Nation in uniform. I remain committed to the interests of
our Nation's veterans and their families. I believe that Congress bears
a special responsibility to protect those programs which serve our
veterans' health and welfare. Our veterans have given so much to our
Nation; we can only hope to give them as much in return.
I am pleased, therefore, that this measure includes an increase for
veterans' medical care, service-connected compensation benefits and
pensions, and readjustment benefits. While there are some shortcomings
in the allocations for other veterans' programs, I am confident that my
colleagues will address these provisions in conference committee. As
the appropriations process moves forward, I will continue to fight for
healthy funding levels for all veterans programs.
Unfortunately, while the bill provides important increases in funding
for veterans' programs, it falls far short in meeting one of our most
basic needs--housing. The bill before us today is $2.5 billion less
than the Administration's request for housing and other community
development programs. This is unacceptable.
I would like to take a moment to focus on funding for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG). As many of my colleagues can recall,
CDBG funds were used to assist the city of Grand Forks in rebuilding
after the devastating flood in 1997. The funds provided the city with
needed flexibility to address both urgent and long-term needs. The
successful recovery of Grand Forks was due in large part to the
assistance from HUD. Under this bill, however, funding for CDBG is cut
by $295 million from last year's funding level.
Additionally, the bill does not provide any funding for Round II
Empowerment Zones. In my State of North Dakota, the Griggs/Steele
Empowerment Zone was designated as such in 1999. At that time, a
commitment was made by the Federal Government to assist this area and
others in creating jobs and economic opportunity. That commitment,
however, goes unfulfilled in this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, at a time of unprecedented economic prosperity, we
should not be turning our backs on those who need help the most, the
poor and homeless, our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. While I stand
in strong support of our Nation's veterans, as a result of these cuts
in the housing program, I will be voting against this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of the health
and safety of our children, our families and our communities. I rise
today to call for increased funding for our environment.
H.R. 4635 funds the Environmental Protection Agency at $199 million
or nearly ten percent below the Administration's request for basic
environmental and public health protection. These programs are
considered the backbone of the Agency's work.
A cut of this magnitude would seriously affect EPA's ability to
provide American communities with cleaner water, cleaner air, and an
improved quality of life.
Toxic air emissions (e.g., benzene, formaldehyde) from industrial
plants, cars and trucks will not be reduced. This will expose
approximately 80% of the American people to greater risks of developing
cancer and other serious health problems (birth defects, reproductive
disorders, and damage to the nervous system).
By delaying implementation of new standards for high-risk chemicals
such as arsenic, radon, and radionuclides, public health and safety
will be jeopardized for 240 million Americans who get their drinking
water from public water systems.
Fish kills and hazardous algal blooms in the Nation's rivers, lakes,
and estuaries will increase as our ability to develop national criteria
to control excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) will be
significantly delayed.
The reduction in EPA's funding will hinder successful voluntary
partnerships with private companies to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases and other air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides
(NOX).
As a result of this cut, over the next decade 335 million tons of
greenhouse gas pollution will unnecessarily be emitted into the
atmosphere and 850 thousand tons of nitrogen oxide will be emitted into
the atmosphere.
Finally, as we enter the summer, millions of American's visiting
beaches will be at increased risk because there will be significant
delays in the Agency's ability to monitor and collect adequate
information about beach contamination.
I urge my colleagues to protect their communities and reject this
anti-environment bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans Affairs, Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill
simply does not do enough. The Majority has delivered a bill that
shortchanges valuable programs. Not only is the core bill itself
underfunded, but today's amendment process has forced Members to vote
on amendments that simply shift already-limited resources from one
important program to another. This ``robbing Peter to pay Paul''
approach doesn't satisfy the real needs of these programs or the needs
of the citizens of this country.
This bill does not make adequate strides to ensure that affordable
housing can be a reality in our country and the dream of first-time
homeownership is attainable. This bill fails to fund the
Administration's request for 120,000 incremental rental assistance
vouchers, including 10,000 vouchers for housing production of the first
new affordable housing for families since 1996.
The bill slashes HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program by $395
[[Page 11813]]
million from the President's request. This cut in funding restricts
communities' abilities to redevelop downtown areas, open after-school
recreation programs, and shelter the homeless.
In recent weeks, President Clinton and Speaker Hastert announced that
they had reached a bipartisan agreement on the New Markets and
Community Renewal legislative initiative. This agreement would increase
funding for ``brownfields'' redevelopment and for housing and economic
development in rural communities, key provisions of the New Markets
Initiative. But the bill before us today doesn't adhere to the spirit
or the letter of this agreement. I am troubled by the Republican
Majority's decision to cut many of the elements of this rare bipartisan
agreement reached by the President and the Speaker.
The bill falls also far short of providing the level of funding
needed for the Environmental Protection Agency's basic environmental,
public health, and other programs. I am particularly concerned about
the bill's cuts to EPA's Climate Change Technology Initiative, which is
made up of voluntary programs designed to mitigate global climate
change, improve energy efficiency, reduce our dependence on foreign
oil, and save consumers money. In addition, the bill still includes
language that unduly limits EPA's activities relative to climate
change.
In the realm of science, this bill will jeopardize our investment in
the future by cutting NSF funding for science and engineering research
and education by over $500 million, or 11% below the requested level.
This reduction will seriously undermine priority investments in
cutting-edge research, and eliminate funding for almost 18,000
researchers and science and mathematics educators--so many of whom live
and work in my district in Colorado.
The bill before us also leaves NASA programs $322 million below the
budget request. It eliminates almost all of the funding for the Small
Aircraft Transportation System and the Aviation Capacity programs, both
of which are intended to make use of NASA's technological capabilities
to reduce air traffic congestion. It eliminates all of the funding for
NASA's Space Launch Initiative, a program to help maintain American
leadership in space transportation. And it eliminates all the money for
NASA's effort to better forecast ``solar storms'' that, if undetected,
can damage the nation's communications and national security
satellites. This ``Living with a Star'' program is especially important
to the University of Colorado at Boulder and federal laboratories in my
district.
Investing in NASA is a wise decision. The advancement of science and
space should concern us all. Yet this bill doesn't fund science and
space programs at levels that would indicate this concern. On the
countrary--many Members were forced to seek offsets in NASA programs in
order to increase funding for other worthwhile programs. For example,
cutting funds for the International Space Station--a traditional target
for offsets--makes even less sense this year, as we're finally in a
position to reap the return on our past investments in that program.
NASA estimates that the U.S. portion of the Space Station development
program is over 90 percent complete. The first segments of the Space
Station are already in orbit and operational, and additional elements
of the Space Station are awaiting launch from Cape Kennedy. Under the
current schedule, crews will start the permanent occupation of the
Space Station this fall, and the U.S. Laboratory will be fully
functional early next year.
Members who would cut Space Station funding argue that this funding
should be redirected to all of the other underfunded accounts in this
bill. Their argument is borne out of the justifiable frustration with
the Majority's Budget Resolution, which set unrealistic--and ultimately
untenable--caps on the various appropriations accounts. The solution is
not to ask Members to make false choices among programs--it is to seek
to increase the overall allocation for the VA-HUD-Independent agencies
subcommittee so that all of the worthwhile activities can be funded at
reasonable levels.
Mr. Chairman, the overall funding shortfall is the key problem with
this bill, and I cannot support it in its current form.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the VA/HUD
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001.
The bill cuts the President's proposed $675 million increase in the
NSF budget by $508 million. This will jeopardize the Nation's
investment in the future. The bill undermines priority investments in
advanced technologies, including information technology, nanotechnology
and geosciences.
Earlier this year, the House passed a bi-partisan bill, H.R. 2086,
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act,
which calls for major increases in Information Technology research and
development, with a large portion of the increase designated to the
NSF. This bill will significantly reduce funding for the Information
Technology R&D program.
Approximately 81 percent ($2,149.9 million) of NSF's FY 1999 funding
in research and development budget was awarded to U.S. colleges and
universities. Many of the higher education institutions in my District
such as Portland State University, Oregon Graduate Institute, and
Oregon Health Sciences University, rely on these grants for cutting
edge research. For instance, these three institutions have joined with
the University of Washington in receiving NSF funding to create a high-
speed metropolitan network to connect the universities for
collaborative medical science, engineering and technology research.
I represent the Silicon Forest. As I meet with high-tech employers
and workers in my district, I hear concerns that there aren't enough
skilled workers. Employers look to the H-1B visa program as an
important safety valve to hire trained high-tech workers. However, the
H-1B visa program is capped, and these caps are reached very quickly--
it is estimated that the total in FY 2000 (115,000) will be reached in
March of this year. Employers are now urging Congress to raise the visa
cap.
We need to do much more than just raise the visa cap on a temporary
emergency basis each year. We need to address the issue of training
American students. The bill we are considering today does not help to
achieve this goal. It slows down our efforts to train the next-
generation of scientists and engineers, and prepare more Americans for
high-tech, high-wage jobs. The cuts in the bill include a 21 percent or
over $30 million below the request for undergraduate education--
including nearly 50 percent cut in requested funding for the National
Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology Education Digital Library.
We must do more for the future of science and our future scientists,
because in doing so, we provide for the future of America.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the budgetary constraints under
which Chairman Walsh is working, and commend him for doing an admirable
job under difficult circumstances. I am, however, deeply concerned
about several programs reduced or eliminated in this bill.
This legislation fails to fund EPA's Office of Long Island Sound
Programs. On May 9, the House voted 391 to 29 to reauthorize the
program at an $80 million level.
Over the past decade, the Long Island Sound Office has been an
essential partner with Connecticut and New York. Together we have made
enormous progress in the cleanup of Long Island Sound. But, we still
have much work to do and many challenges to face. It is critical the
Long Island Sound Office funding be restored and increased
significantly so we may succeed in cleaning up, preserving and
protecting Long Island Sound for future generations.
This bill also eliminates additional Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) funding for disaster relief--providing only $300 million,
a decrease of $2.4 billion from FY 00.
It is fiscally irresponsible for this House to neglect to appropriate
money for disaster relief. Natural disasters cannot be prevented, and
the federal government has a responsibility to assist communities
respond to emergencies. Relying on emergency spending appropriations
bills to respond to inevitable disasters is simply not good budgeting.
It is my hope the Conference Committee will work to restore FEMA
funds and permit the agency to adequately prepare for natural disasters
in a timely manner and fulfill its responsibility to those whose lives
are affected.
I plan to vote for final passage of this legislation because I want
to keep the process moving forward, but I would like to make clear I
will not vote for a Conference Report that fails to restore the Office
of Long Island Sound Programs.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the HUD/VA
appropriations bill. I am opposed to cuts in the HUD budget, especially
with regard to the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is
cut by about $300 million from last year's level, and the HOME
investment program.
The Community Development Fund provides funding to state and local
governments, and to other entities that carry out community and
economic development activities. The HOME investment partnerships
program provides grants to states and units of local government through
formula allocation for the purpose of expanding the supply of
affordable housing. As a former Montgomery County Commissioner, I know
how heavily local communities rely on these funds.
These cuts block efforts by our communities to create desperately
needed affordable housing and jobs and curtail efforts to expand
[[Page 11814]]
home ownership and revitalize our poorest communities. These programs
are a key incentive to development in my community in Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania. According to local officials who have contacted
me about these critical programs, these reductions mean that much
needed development work may be delayed or canceled.
Other objectionable provisions in this bill include the anti-
environmental riders, no new funding for additional Section 8 vouchers,
and no funding for the President's National Service program. Overall
spending for the bill is more than $2 billion below the President's
request.
I will vote against this legislation in the hope that the conference
committee will improve on the work of the House.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the United States is facing an
affordable housing crisis. While the American dream has always included
homeownership, the price of the average home has surpassed the
financial reach of many Americans, with housing values even outpacing
the national inflation rate. This VA-HUD bill disregards the current
state of critical housing needs that our nation is experiencing.
Despite an unprecedented era of national economic prosperity, the gap
between available, affordable housing and accessibility for both
homeowners and renters is widening. Families who have worst-case
housing needs as defined by HUD are those who receive no government
housing assistance, have incomes less than 50 percent of local area
family income, and pay more than half their income for rent or mortgage
and utilities. Based on this criteria, the number of families faced
with worst-case housing needs has reached an all-time high of 5.4
million families, an increase of 12 percent since 1991. This
constitutes a staggering figure--it means that one out of every seven
American families is experiencing a critical housing situation.
In the past, the United States maintained a housing surplus. In 1970,
a market of 6.5 million low-cost rental units was available for 6.2
million low-income renters. By 1995, the surplus disappeared and 10.5
million low-income renters had to vie for 6.1 million available low-
cost rental units on the market.
This housing crisis is not just an inner-city problem. In the suburbs
throughout the last decade, we saw a decline in the number of units
affordable to low-income families. Today, over one-third of households
facing worst-case needs are in the suburbs.
Affordable housing is an essential component of a livable community.
Communities that support residents of varying income levels and choices
for housing are sustainable. These communities support a diverse body
of workers, both service-oriented and professional, that responds to
the employment needs of the local economy.
This bill before us cuts $303,000 funding for my district from the
Administration's request level. The reductions are in a number of HUD
programs--among them Community Development Block Grants, Homeless
Assistance, public housing operating subsidies, and Housing
Opportunities for People with AIDS.
Last year, the House passed H.R. 202, ``Preserving Affordable Housing
for Seniors in the 21st Century'' by a margin of 405-5. It included
provisions that would have meant additional funding for service
coordinators, assisted living, congregate housing services, and capital
improvements. No funding for this legislation was included in this
appropriations bill. This means the needs will go unmet for services
that will enable many of our seniors to age in place rather than face
homelessness or premature institutionalization. And the Housing
Authority of Portland tells me that without this funding, it will find
it extremely difficult to meet its needs for basic repairs such as
roofs, sprinklers and heating and cooling systems.
Section 8 is the federal government's primary mechanism for meeting
the housing needs of low-income households. One strength of this
program is that it allows the recipient a choice of which community in
which to live. This approach is different from public housing in that
it disperses recipients into economically diverse communities and
avoids the undesirable social effects of clustering of low-income
residents. Funding for the Section 8 program needs to be strengthened.
Not a single additional person is given Section 8 assistance with this
bill; the ``increases'' proponents claim are merely budget gimmicks.
The budget for low-income affordable housing programs, particularly
Section 8 vouchers and Public Housing, needs to be increased. Housing
authority waiting lists are longer than at any time in the past.
Approximately 25,000 households in Oregon are waiting for housing
assistance. These people are elderly, disabled, or single parents with
children.
So I ask my colleagues to consider these items as we each return
tonight to the comfort of our homes. Think of the Americans who are
honest and hard-working, yet still are having difficulty providing
adequate shelter for their families. Help make the American dream
obtainable for them. We need to increase funding for federal housing
programs.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
There being no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee
rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4635) making
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 525, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote on final passage of House Joint Resolution 90 immediately
hereafter will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256,
nays 169, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 309]
YEAS--256
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
[[Page 11815]]
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--169
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Cook
DeLay
Kuykendall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Serrano
Vento
Wynn
{time} 2136
Mr. INSLEE and Mr. DOOLEY of California changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________