[Pages H8015-H8022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 201 and rule
XXIII, 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. 2099.

{time} 1430

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. 2099) 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, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, July
28, 1995, pending was amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and title III was open for amendment at any
point.
Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Thursday, July 27, 1995,
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining
in debate and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1 minute
remaining in debate.

{time} 1431

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had enough
debate on this matter. It is a very, very cleverly worded amendment
that has a tremendous effect upon EPA, broadening its authority. I ask
very strongly for a ``no'' vote of the membership.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
27, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with great respect for the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the committee, to discuss a
matter which I think is of importance to the House.
I have here before me a release from the Chemical Manufacturers
Association in which this trade association of the businesses which pay
most of the costs of the Superfund tax are complaining.
In the beginning it says, nearly three-quarters of all Americans
believe that money paid to the Federal Government to clean up our
hazardous waste sites should not be diverted to other Federal programs
or to help pay for the Federal deficit according to a recent national
public opinion survey.
It goes on to discuss whether or not a prohibition for that use
exists, and it points out, more properly, that no such prohibition does
exist. Then, Mr. Fred Weber, the president of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association which sponsored the research, says, and I
quote now, ``Almost from the very beginning, Superfund has been used by
the government as a cash cow. This has to stop. Every dollar raised for
Superfund should be spent on cleanups, not on other programs, and not
on deficit reduction.''
That is the thing, I think, with which every Member of this body
fully agrees. It certainly was the intention of the committees of the
House, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Committee on Commerce, when we adopted that legislation, that this
would be a trust fund, it would be protected against being raided for
such interesting programs as it has been tapped for, for other
purposes.
Mr. Weber in his press release goes on to state as follows: ``Nearly
$3 billion originally intended for cleaning up waste sites has been
used for deficit reduction and to offset the cost of other Federal
programs and administrative costs such as at the Environmental
Protection Agency and at other agencies.
``For example, the Congress has used Superfund money to offset the
costs of developing the Space Station,'' and he goes on to say the fact
that Superfund money has been used by the government on things other
than cleaning up waste sites is one of the great untold stories of the
program.
It is also one of its greatest outrages, and he goes on to say a
little later, ``For years the government has collected more money for
Superfund than it spends. For example, in fiscal year 1994, total
Superfund receipts were nearly $2.1 billion. However, the Congress
appropriated only about $1.5 billion for Superfund activities. By
earmarking the nearly $600 million in excess Superfund collections for
deficit reduction and for use by other agencies, the Congress avoided
having to cut spending to meet other budget guidelines.''
Mr. Chairman, I am telling my colleagues something which is very
important. Shortly we are going to be considering an amendment which
will address the question of whether we are going to have new starts
under Superfund to clean up hazardous waste sites now ready. Moneys
which would normally be available for that activity are not being spent
here.
I would like the attention of my dear friend and my respected
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], on this matter,
because I am told that the moneys that are being spent for Superfund
cleanups are General Fund moneys, and the Superfund moneys in the
Superfund account or trust fund are not, in fact, being so spent.
In point of fact, we are going to spend a little over a billion
dollars on cleanup, but we have about $1.6 billion in the trust fund.
Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman from California tell me whether I am
correct on that point?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the
gentleman and say that we are taking all the authority out of Treasury.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about my amendment; I am
asking a question to find out how this money is being spent. I am told
that we are going to spend a billion for cleanup. We have $1.6 billion
in Superfund, but we are spending General Fund moneys; is that correct?

[[Page H 8016]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, that is rather peculiar, and it is not in
conformity with the intention of the House and the Senate when they
passed the original Superfund legislation or the amendments to it,
because that was supposed to be a trust fund for the cleanup of these
hazardous waste sites.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been a
leader in this field for a long, long time, and as the former
authorizing committee chairman, he knows full well that Superfund has
not been reauthorized and so we are operating with a statute that all
sides agree is in need of major reform. To say the least, there are
problems with the way the Superfund operates. I would urge the
authorizing committees to go forward quickly as possible to overcome
these problems.
Mr. DINGELL. What the gentleman is telling me is that we are spending
Superfund moneys for other purposes.
amendment no. 38 offered by mr. dingell

Mr. DINGELL. 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. Dingell:
Page 59, line 23, before ``to remain available'' insert
``(increased by $440,000,000)''.
Page 64, line 16, after ``$320,000,000'' insert (reduced by
$186,450,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and a Member opposed will each be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which I offer on behalf of myself
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown], my friend and colleague. Mr.
Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Without the adoption of this
amendment, 58 new starts of cleanups of hazardous sites will not be
begun; there will be, without the adoption of this amendment, no new
Superfund cleanups started next year.
The amendment is a very simple one. All it does is put about $400
million more into Superfund. It takes it out of FEMA. We have it costed
out very carefully by the Congressional Budget Office. Some 52 Members
of this body will find that the land, the air, the water, the
subsurface waters of their districts will continue to be contaminated
with imminent endangerment to the health, welfare, and environment of
their people and the districts that they serve.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment
because, I reiterate, without the adoption of this amendment, there
will be no new starts under the cleanup program.
At the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, I will insert into the Record
a list including these 58 sites and the areas in which they are
located.
Why is the amendment necessary? Because, as reported, the legislation
contains a harmful reduction in the Superfund program of over $500
million below the President's budget request and more than $140 million
below the fiscal year 1995 level.
Under this greatly reduced funding, progress at many sites will be
frozen. Many other cleanups will be stopped. No new starts will occur,
and there will be significant delays in cleanups all throughout the
programs and throughout the sites in many parts of the country.
This is going to affect, I reiterate, the air, the water, the
subsurface water, the soil, the environment and the health of the
people in the area. This makes no sense. If this amendment is not
passed, the new sites that are now scheduled for cleanup--and all that
has to be started is to do the digging and the work of making the
cleanup move forward--will not start.
Communities will be denied cleanups that have been promised and in
many cases contamination of the air, the water, the soil, and the
subsurface waters especially, will continue to spread, and other
cleanups further down the pipeline will have to wait even longer.
From a financial and cost standpoint, stopping these cleanups fits
the old adage of ``penny wise and pound foolish.'' Spreading
contamination means ultimately higher cleanup costs, greater risk to
the health and welfare of the American people. And stopping cleanups
can harm and hurt economic development as well as the health of the
people.
By stopping cleanups ready to go, which will happen unless this
amendment is adopted, Congress will be breaching faith with the
citizens who live around these areas and the affected communities.
The amendment, as I have observed, is outlay neutral, and it should
be observed that cleaning up and protecting the health and the welfare
of the American people by good forward on sites now ready to start,
some 58 of them in districts of Members in every part of this country,
Republican and Democratic districts alike, is something that we must
address forthwith. I urge my colleagues that the amendment be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, let us begin the cleanups on these sites which would
otherwise be stopped. I remind my colleagues, without this amendment,
there will be no new starts on cleanup of Superfund sites in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

REMEDIAL CLEANUPS SCHEDULED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cong.
State dist. Member City Site name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA....................... 03 Peter I. Blute.......... Dartmouth, MA........... Re-solve Inc.
MA....................... 05 Martin T. Meehan........ Tyngsborough, MA........ Charles-George
Reclamation Landfill.
ME....................... 02 John Baldacci........... Washburn, ME............ Pinette's Salvage Yard.
NH....................... 01 Bill Zeliff............. Kingston, NH............ Ottai and Gross/Kingston
Steel Drum.
NH....................... 02 Charles Bass............ Milford, NH............. Savage Well Site.
NJ....................... 02 Frank LoBiondo.......... Vineland, NJ............ Vineland Chemical Co.
NJ....................... 03 Jim Saxton.............. Beverly, NJ............. Cosden Chemical Coatings
Corp.
NJ....................... 04 Christopher Smith....... Roebling, NJ............ Roebling Steel Co.
NJ....................... 10 Donald Payne............ Orange, NJ.............. U.S. Radium Corp.
NJ....................... 11 Rodney Frelinghuysen.... Millington, NJ.......... Asbestos Dump.
NJ....................... 12 Dick Zimmer............. East Brunswick Township, Fried Industries.
NJ.
NY....................... 04 Daniel Frisa............ Franklin Square, NY..... Genzale Plating Co.
PA....................... 06 Tim Holden.............. Worman TWP., Boyetown, Cryochem Inc.
PA.
PA....................... 11 Paul Kanjorski.......... Valley TWP., PA......... NW Manufacturing Site.
PA....................... 16 Robert Walker........... Newlin TWP., PA......... Strasburg Landfill.
VA....................... 04 Norman Sisisky.......... Chuchatuck, VA.......... Saunders Supply Co.
VA....................... 10 Frank Wolf.............. Front Royal, VA......... Avetx Fibers, Inc.
WV....................... 02 Robert Wise, Jr......... Nitro, WV............... Fike Chemical Inc.
AL....................... 01 Sonny Callahan.......... Bucks, AL............... Stauffer Chemical Co.
(Cold Creek Plant).
FL....................... 01 Joe Scarborough......... Pensacola, FL........... American Creosote Works
(Pensacola Plant).
FL....................... 22 E. Clay Shaw, Jr........ Miami, FL............... Anodyne Site, Inc.
MI....................... 09 Dale Kildee............. Pleasant Plains TWP., MI Wash King Laundry.
MN....................... 04 Bruce Vento............. New Brighton, MN........ MacGillis and Gibbs Co./
Bell Lumber and Pole.
OH....................... 16 Ralph Regula............ Uniontown, OH........... Industrial Excess LDFL.
OK....................... 06 Frank Lucas............. Cyril, OK............... Oklahoma Refining Co.
TX....................... 30 Eddie Bernice Johnson... Dallas, TX.............. RSR Corp.
NE....................... 03 Bill Barrett............ Hastings, NE............ Hastings Ground Water
Contamination Site.
CO....................... 03 Scott McInnis........... Summitville, CO......... Summitville Mine Site.
AZ....................... 01 Matt Salmon............. Scottsdale, AZ.......... Indian Bend Wash Area.
NV....................... 02 Barbara Vucanovich...... Moundhouse, NV.......... Carson River Mercury
Site.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H 8017]]
REMOVAL CLEANUPS SCHEDULED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cong.
State dist. Member City Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ....................... 02 Frank Lobiondo.......... Pedricktown, NJ......... NL Industries.
NY....................... 30 Jack Quinn.............. Minetto, NY............. Columbia Mills
WV....................... 01 Alan B. Mollohan........ Fairmont, WV............ Fairmont Coke Works.
VA....................... 03 Robert C. Scott......... Richmond, VA............ Hymon Viner.
DE....................... 01 Michael N. Castle....... New Castle, DE.......... Halby Chemical Co.
WV....................... 04 Nick J. Rahall II....... Fairdale, WV............ Holly Hills.
OH....................... 13 Sherrod Brown........... Lorain, OH.............. Lorain County Pesticides
Site
OH....................... 04 Michael G. Oxley........ Mansfield, OH........... Lincoln Fields.
MI....................... 01 Bart Stupak............. Manistique, MI.......... Manistique River and
Harbor.
MI....................... 06 Fred Upton.............. Benton Harbor, MI....... Benton Harbor.
IN....................... 03 Timothy J. Roemer....... Osceola, IN............. Galen Meyers Site.
AK....................... 02 Ray Thornton............ Jacksonville, AK........ Vertac.
OK....................... 02 Thomas A. Coburn........ Miami, OK............... Tar Creek (Ottawa
County).
TX....................... 02 Charles Wilson.......... Jasper, TX.............. Hart Creosote.
LA....................... 04 Cleo Fields............. Bossier City, LA........ Highway 71/71 (Old Citgo
Refinery)
MO....................... 01 William (Bill) Clay..... St. Louis, MO........... East Texas.
MO....................... 01 William (Bill) Clay..... St. Louis, MO........... Dioxin Sites.
CO....................... 01 Patricia Schroeder...... Denver, CO.............. Ramp Industries.
UT....................... 03 Bill Orton.............. Magna, UT............... Kennecott Tailing/North
Zone (Cobalt Ponds).
CO....................... 06 Dan Schaefer............ Conifer CO.............. Conifer/Aspen Park
Carbon Tet.
UT....................... 03 Bill Orton.............. Midvale, UT............. Midvale Slag.
UT....................... 02 Enid Waldholtz.......... Salt Lake City, UT...... Sandy City Smelter
Residential.
CO....................... 03 Scott Mcinnis........... Grand Junction, CO...... Hansen Container.
WY....................... At Lrg Barbara Cubin........... Lovell, WY.............. Lovell Refinery.
UT....................... 02 Enid Waldholtz.......... Salt Lake City, UT...... Butterfield Lumber.
AZ....................... 01 Matt Salmon............. Tempe, AR............... Saunders Aviation.
CA....................... 01 Frank Riggs............. Clear Lake, CA.......... Sulpher Bank.
CA....................... 25 Howard P. McKeon........ Los Angeles, CA......... Superchrome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the amendment of my colleague. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] mentions that there will be no
new sites, and he mentions, specifically, 58 sites that will not be
moving toward construction if we do not move forward with this
amendment, and the volume of money that is involved here.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman that it would have
helped the process an awful lot if over the last several years we had
gone about reauthorizing and fixing Superfund. The Secretary herself,
testifying before my subcommittee, said that Superfund absolutely needs
to be fixed. It is broken. Indeed, there is a long process with those
15 sites. They have to go through a record of decision. There is
environmental impact analysis to be done. There is no question that
there is need for money, but why should we throw good money after bad
if the program is not fixed by the authorizing committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. [Mr.
Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan.
As the chairman of the primary subcommittee in charge of reforming
the Superfund program, I also wanted increased funding for Superfund.
I, along with the gentleman from Virgina, Chairman Bliley, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, wrote to Chairman Lewis
and requested funding for the Superfund program that reflected fiscal
year 1995's appropriation. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee
simply could not provide that level of funding. While that makes my job
of reforming the Superfund program more difficult, the appropriators'
rationale is a sound one--that we can no longer afford to waste money
on a Superfund program which simply doesn't work.
If you are under the impression that Superfund works well, we need
only to look at the case of Southern Foundry Supply Co., a family-owned
business located in Chattanooga, TN. As shown on this chart, EPA spent
approximately $1.3 million studying the site. Southern Foundry was
forced to spend an additional $500,000 in attorneys' fees and in
conducting its own studies. Some 15 years and $2 million later,
Southern Foundry escaped the Superfund web by spending $38,000 and 2
days scooping up nonhazardous dirt and shipping it offsite. It is a
perfect example of how Superfund works--millions for lawyers and
consultants but little for actual cleanup. It's no wonder that the
Appropriations Committee doesn't think that this program should
continue without significant reform.
I think it is vitally important that we are clear about what the
Appropriations Committee is doing in this bill. Realizing that we will
have limited funds now and into the future, the appropriators have said
that we can no longer afford to throw away money on ineffective
cleanups and endless litigation. They have said that EPA should wait
until Congress reforms this program before they go forward with any
more flawed remedies or make the Federal Government responsible for any
new sites. And, frankly, I agree.
Superfund's track record speaks for itself: since the program was
enacted in 1980, only 75 sites have been cleaned up at a cost to the
Federal Government of more than $15 billion.
What many of my colleagues fail to realize is that the appropriations
bill before us actually spends more on cleanup than EPA has in the
past. In this bill, nearly 65 percent of the funds are directed to
cleanup. Even though EPA claims that as much as 70 percent of Superfund
dollars are for cleanup, my subcommittee found that less than 50
percent of that money ends up being spent on Superfund sites. What is
reduced in this bill is EPA bureaucrats and Justice Department lawyers.
This appropriations bill is the natural predecessor to my
subcommittee's reform effort. It redirects funds to cleanup, and
imposed a deadline on the Congress and the administration for reforming
the Superfund program. If we can't make this program work by the end of
the year, then the American people are better off without it.
If we leave the status quo intact, who wins? Not the environment; not
the people who live near these sites; certainly not the American
taxpayer. A little more money won't help this program clean up more
sites or make Americans any safer, particularly when shifting that
money from FEMA will leave our citizens more exposed to the ravages of
disasters, both natural and manmade. The only thing that can make
Superfund more effective in protecting our citizens' health is top to
bottom reform, and the bill we are debating today is the first step in
that effort. The authorizing committee will totally change the
Superfund program for the better. The authorizing committee will take
the next step this fall.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dingell-Brown amendment and
support the bill as is on final passage.

{time} 1445

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
My good friend from Ohio, for whom I have the most enormous respect,
sent a letter to the appropriating subcommittee, which I will insert
the entirety of in the Record because I know the gentleman has
forgotten sending the letter, in which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley], the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and this
letter written to you, to my good friend, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis], ``Therefore, we respectfully request that you include in
your subcommittee mark of the VA-

[[Page H 8018]]

HUD appropriations bill an appropriation for the Superfund program of
at least $1.5 billion in new budgetary authority,'' quite different
from what my friend from Ohio tells us today.
I would also remind my good friend from Ohio that last year, out of
the Committee on Commerce came a bill passed 44 to nothing which was
endorsed and supported by the administration, by industry, by the
environmentalists and by everybody on the committee. It has been
reintroduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] and me, and
lies in the gentleman's subcommittee.
Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, June 20, 1995.
Hon. Jerry Lewis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Jerry: As you know, the authorization of
appropriations for the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), commonly known
as Superfund, expired at the end of fiscal year 1994, and the
program has been operating without an authorization since
then. The various committees of jurisdiction have tried
unsuccessfully for years to make Superfund into a program
that achieves the goal of protection of human health and the
environment. We intend to reverse that failed record this
year by reforming Superfund to make it fairer, cheaper, and
more effective.
We are writing to request your assistance in rebuilding
this broken program from the bottom up. We want to ensure
that Superfund is actually protecting Amercians from the
hazards of toxic waste and not just financing another
generation of lawyers at the expense of the taxpayers. To do
that, we need a program focusing on finding cost effective
solutions to hazards rather than on assessing blame and
raising funds.
At the heart of the Superfund ``blame game'' is the system
of strict, joint and several, and retroactive liability. If
we, the authorizing committees, are to reform this program
and get Superfund out of the courts and onto these sites,
then we must comprehensively reform the current Superfund
liability system, including a repeal of retroactive
liability. In order to do that and still ensure that truly
hazardous sites are being cleared up, we must have the
maximum funding possible for fiscal year 1996 and into the
future.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you include in your
Subcommittee mark of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill an
appropriation for the Superfund program of at least $1.5
billion in new budget authority. This amount is consistent
with funding levels for previous years, and is necessary to
ensure that we have the operating funds necessary in the
first years of the reformed program. We are open to working
with you on reprogramming funds within Superfund to ensure
that this year's program is consistent with the goals we have
set forth for our reform effort.
There is broad consensus that Superfund is a broken program
in need of immediate fixing. If we cannot achieve the kind of
meaningful, comprehensive reform of CERCLA that all of us
believe is necessary--and which prior Congresses have been
unable to deliver--this is a program which simply should not
be continued. Accordingly, we also ask that you make the
availability of appropriations for Superfund beyond December
31, 1995 contingent upon the enactment of CERCLA's
reauthorization. We believe the program should be terminated
if we cannot pass a Superfund reform worthy of being signed
into law.
Thank you for considering our views. We stand ready to work
with you to reach a consensus on a reform package allowing us
to achieve the kinds of fundamental reforms necessary while
fulfilling our common goal of a balanced budget.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Bud Shuster,
Michael G. Oxley.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
Mr. OXLEY. Let me point out, I pointed out in my response about that
letter; I referenced the fact that Chairman Bliley, Chairman Shuster,
and I sent a letter to the gentleman from California in my remarks and
recognize that they have a job to do as well, and they recognize that
the program as it is now constituted is simply not working.
And so they said to us, ``Look, you get your act together, get a good
bill passed, and we will reconsider the kind of money that will be
available in the Superfund Program.'' I think that is entirely,
entirely reasonable.
As a matter of fact, the bill that the gentleman from Michigan
referred to we all worked very hard on, did not pass.
Mr. DINGELL. The Republicans killed it.
Mr. OXLEY. Right. If you recall, the last time I looked in the 103d
Congress, the Democrats were in control. We were not able to kill
anything.
The fact is this bill will pass this year and will be a major reform
of the Superfund Program. We will keep faith with the appropriators,
keep faith with the American people, we will keep faith with the
environment. I am entirely confident that will be the case.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I might mention at the tail end of that discussion
between the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] that we are allocated only so many dollars within
our bill, very difficult dollars to stretch among these various
accounts.
This specific proposal would be a budget buster insofar as our bill
is concerned. We are talking about approximately $89 million in outlay.
We would be short if this amendment were to become law.
I strongly urge the membership to refuse this additional allocation
and recognize the bill does have to stay within its outlay targets.
I ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], in
large part because there will not be one new started cleanup, not one
new cleanup if this amendment does not pass.
This amendment ensures 55 important projects currently slated to
begin in fiscal year 1996 can go forward. It is fully funded through an
offset in funding for FEMA, which currently holds nearly $1.8 billion
in unobligated funds.
In Elyria, Ohio, in my district, hundreds of homes and businesses
have been affected by application of methyl parathion, a toxic
pesticide which can damage the central nervous system and the brain.
This pesticide was illegally applied by an unlicensed exterminator,
affecting many Ohio communities.
Short-term effects of exposure to methyl parathion include headache,
vomiting, lung damage, mental disorder, coma, paralysis, heart failure,
and even death. As little as a teaspoon can cause serious illness,
especially in children or elderly who are particularly vulnerable.
This cleanup in Elyria is ongoing. As of June 10, 105 units were
decontaminated, 75 residential homes restored, 430 residents were
temporarily relocated, and 225 returned to their homes.
But these numbers represent only 50 percent of what needs to be done.
Contaminated homes are still being identified. The situation is dire in
Lorain County and needs continued attention.
This is only one example of the 55 sites which would be restored by
this amendment, and I repeat what the gentleman from Michigan said,
that if this amendment does not pass, none of these cleanups will
begin.
Certainly we must reform Superfund to ensure that it cleans up more
sites rather than continuing to line lawyers' pockets, but the projects
that will be eliminated by cutting funding included in this bill pose
an imminent threat to the health of human beings in our communities.
This is the very goal, obviously, for which Superfund was created.
The funding cut will halt the progress that we have made. It will tie
the hands of the EPA. It will punish residents in Lorain County, Ohio,
and 54 other communities, including one in Richland County in the
district of my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
Furthermore, the longer we wait the more expensive the cleanup will
become. As pesticide leaches into ground water, rivers, streams, and
contamination spreads, cleanup costs will only increase.
The language of the report accompanying H.R. 2099 seems to say that
it is OK to finish studies but not to design the remedy. It is OK to
finish the design but not to proceed with cleanup. It is OK to prohibit
EPA from overseeing cleanups being undertaken by private, responsible
parties, and it is OK for Congress to tell our communities that we will
just have to wait indefinitely for this cleanup.
Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. It is not OK to ask our communities to
wait for us to address the toxic chemicals that

[[Page H 8019]]

contaminate our homes and schools and businesses.
The Dingell amendment simply makes sense so our communities do not
have to wait for this cleanup.
If the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] would engage briefly in
a colloguy, is it correct, I ask the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell], whether State cleanup managers of the 50 States strongly
support this amendment restoring cleanup money now for fiscal year
1996?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. The answer to the question is ``yes,'' and I have a
letter on that point which we will insert in the Record at the
appropriate time.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. It is my understanding these same managers in the
50 States have said that overall costs will increase if we do not pass
this amendment, that contamination, if unabated, could spread, and that
most important, surrounding communities will continue to be subjected
to health risks posed from these sites. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will yield further, that is correct,
and these are Superfund sites, because they have been chosen under the
criteria as areas and as contamination sources which impose imminent
endangerment upon the public health in the area.
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials,
Washington, DC, July 26, 1995.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, House Commerce Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Dingell: I am writing on behalf of the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO), whose membership includes the State
cleanup program managers. Our members are engaged in the day-
to-day remediation of sites throughout the country and
therefore have a fundamental interest in ensuring the
Superfund program is adequately funded. The purpose of this
letter is to communicate our strong support for your
amendment to H.R. 2099 restoring $440 million to the
Superfund budget.
After 15 years of experience with the Superfund program,
many NPL sites are now in the remedial design and
construction phase. Delaying site progress at this stage will
have far reaching impacts, i.e., the overall costs associated
with these sites will increase; contamination, if left
unabated, could spread; and most importantly, surrounding
communities will continue to be subjected to health risks
posed from these sites. We believe an expectation has been
created in the minds of the American public that no matter
where one lives or what economic class one belongs to, human
health will be protected. As we understand, your amendment
will allow at least fifty-five (55) remedial and removal
actions to proceed uninterrupted.
While the federal Superfund program is directly responsible
for ensuring the remediation of approximately 1300 NPL sites,
it can also be credited with indirectly spurring the growth
of over 20 State Voluntary cleanup programs and over 40 State
Superfund programs. As of 1992 State programs have remediated
2,689 sites and are currently working on an additional 11,000
active sites. The Federal Superfund program provides the
backbone for these cleanups and must be sufficiently funded.
State Waste Officials thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Teresa D. Hay,
President.

Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I again ask for support of the Dingell amendment.
Fifty-five sites will not be cleaned up if this amendment does not
pass.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Dingell
amendment to restore funding for the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup
program.
What is the major complaint heard year after year about the Superfund
program? Not enough cleanup, not enough shovels in the ground. Well,
EPA heard those criticisms and rearranged the priorities of the
Superfund program to assure the maximum amount of cleanup with the
minimum amount of delay. Now, as EPA is continuing to increase the
number of cleanups, the Appropriations Committee decides to refuse to
fund those cleanups.
This is not what is in the best interests of the Superfund program.
And, it clearly is not what is the best interests of the people living
in the vicinity of the 58 sites which will receive no cleanup should
the Dingell amendment fail.
There is no valid reason to hold back on the cleanup of these sites
just because you believe, as we all do, that the Superfund program
needs reform. The cleanups which would be restored by the Dingell
amendment are EPA cleanup sites. They are sites at which the Superfund
program is providing the funding for cleanup. These are not sites which
would be affected by any change in the liability mechanism of
Superfund.
Congress may or may not determine to alter the liability mechanism of
Superfund. But, liability is not an issue in the cleanup of these 58
sites. These are EPA-led sites where there is no private party
involvement. Congress can repeal the liability mechanism, retain it, or
adopt a compromise--it will not matter to the cleanup of these sites.
What will matter is whether EPA is allowed the resources to initiate
cleanup action on these sites.
Failure to initiate cleanup at these sites poses a serious health
threat to those who live nearby. Twenty-five of these sites are
scheduled removal actions. Removal actions are only undertaken as
short-term responses where there is a public health threat which needs
to be abated. Without the Dingell amendment, some 25 sites, in 19
States, and in 22 congressional districts, will not receive attention
next year, yet the health threat will remain.
An additional 30 sites are scheduled for remedial actions. Again,
this bill will prevent the cleanup of sites in 19 States, and in 30
congressional districts. Superfund reform is supposed to be in the name
of getting on which cleanups, yet when EPA proposes to move forward on
cleanups, EPA is told it cannot have the resources to do so.
I question whether the Republican leadership is serious about
Superfund reform. As we debate this bill in July, there is but one
comprehensive reform bill pending before the Congress--H.R. 228, which
was introduced on the first day of the session by Mr. Dingell and
myself. Now, 7 months into the Congress, there is not one comprehensive
reform bill pending from the majority party. At the same time, the
Appropriations Committee has determined that Superfund will be shut
down entirely should reform not occur before the end of this year.
Why the delay? The bill Mr. Dingell and I introduced from last year
had the support of organizations such as NFIB, CMA, the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, the American Bankers Association, several environmental
groups, and the administration. But, there has been no action. There is
not even anything scheduled toward enacting reform.
If the majority wants Superfund reform, pass H.R. 228, but don't kill
the program while awaiting reform. There has been a reasonable,
responsible proposal before the House for over 6 months, let's get on
with it.
Let's also get on with cleanups which are ready to go--support the
Dingell amendment.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains to me?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to try to summarize this very briefly, and I do
so with great respect to the chairman of the subcommittee, also the
chairman of the legislative subcommittee.
The issue before us is very simple. The gentleman is going to
conclude; all I am going to do is use 1 minute.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for my
colleague from California and my chairman, especially my colleague's
mother-in-law, I will be happy to yield a couple more minutes to the
gentleman.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful. I do not think we need it,
but I want to thank my good friend.
There is one bill pending, but that bill will not be enacted this
year because it is only going to come up in September, and we are going
to be very busy during the month of September. What this failure to
adopt this amendment will do to us is it will mean that committees will
be dawdling while the country is afflicted with some 58 sites which are
decided already to be imminently dangerous to the public health

[[Page H 8020]]

welfare and to the environment. There will be no cleanup, there will be
no new starts. Pollution of ground water, air, soil, and surface water
will continue unabated. How many Americans will have to die because we
do not address this? How many will get cancer? How many will suffer
health failures and health problems because of this failure? There are
some 52 congressional districts and some 58 sites involved here.
I plead with my colleagues, and I say this with respect to my good
friends on the Republican side, let us clean up these sites, let us
spend the money, let us do what has to be done now. The money is here.
The appropriations arrangement will move the money from where it is not
needed to where it is, and we can begin to address an imminent problem
immediately affecting the health and the well-being of American people
in some 19 States and in some 58 areas.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is not as though this program is not funded in our
bill. We do provide for an additional billion dollars, and I know that
there are those who suggest that there is a need for more. But I must
say to my colleagues in the House that one of the objectives here is to
put pressure on the entire process, perhaps even get the other body to
respond to the authorizing process. Unless this program is reformed,
there is something fundamentally wrong with his continuing to throw
money at it without that basic reform. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July
27, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will be postponed.
Are there further amendments to title III?
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, there is a disturbing provision in this
bill that deserves to be brought to the attention of my colleagues. For
some inexplicable reason, the committee has included $1 million for the
Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] to terminate the programs and
activities of the National Environmental Policy Act and to close the
Council's doors.
The establishment of CEQ occurred at a time when we were just
beginning to understand that major activities of the Federal Government
can, and frequently do, have significant impacts on the environment.
Today, thanks in part to NEPA and CEQ, we understand that a through
examination of the impacts of our actions is critical to balancing
economics and environmental protection.
I cannot understand why this body would want to shut down CEQ. The
Council has a long and distinguished bipartisan history going back 25
years to the Nixon administration. Former Under Secretary of the
Interior for President Nixon, Russell Train, and the former Republican
Governor of Delaware, Russell Peterson, were the first two chairmen of
CEQ--and to this day, both believe that the enactment of NEPA, with its
concurrent establishment of CEQ, is the most significant environmental
law passed in the last quarter century.
NEPA is not about controlling development, limiting growth, or
fostering preservation. NEPA is about ensuring balance in Federal
decisionmaking. It is the law that first opened up Federal
decisionmaking to citizen involvement. For those of my colleagues who
are suspicious of the big, bad Federal bureaucracy, may I remind you
that it is NEPA which ensures that State and local governments and your
affected constituents have an opportunity to make their views known to
a Federal agency proposing to undertake a particular action in their
backyard?
The committee's report on this bill points to the need for increased
coordination in implementing environmental policy within the executive
branch. Then, without any apparent explanation, the recommendation is
made to get rid of CEQ. I also have serious concerns about the
ambiguity in the language,
which could be construed as an attempt to repeal NEPA itself, although
I do not believe that was the committee's intention.

I do not intend to press this matter further at this time, although
I'm convinced that this provision makes an already bad bill even worse.
But I would say to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the
subcommittee, that I and others from this side of the aisle are very
concerned about this, and would like the opportunity to discuss the
issue with you prior to your conference with the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes. I have repeatedly
expressed my great respect and affection for the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lewis], and I again do so at this time because he is a
very fine person and a very valuable Member of this body. I do rise, as
has the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], to express concern
about the fact that funds for the Council on Environmental Quality have
been stricken from the bill.
When the Congress adopted the basic legislation, the National
Environmental Policy Act, years ago, as a matter of fact some 30 years
ago, it was our purpose to set up one agency inside the Office of the
President. The function of that agency would be to advise the President
on environmental matters, to serve as a clearinghouse on environmental
matters and concerns, to see to it that the differing and diverse
policies of the Federal Government on the area of environment were knit
together in something of a better unitary whole than that which had
been done before. We found that the Council on Environmental Quality
over the years has done so, and it is an agency which is small in
number and which is low in budget, but which nevertheless has
contributed enormously by seeing to it that different policies on the
environment adopted by different agencies inside the Federal Government
are rationalized, are harmonized, and that the agencies talk together
and work together to resolve differences so we can have coherence
rather than cacophony.
I am deeply troubled that these monies have been stricken almost in
their entirety. I do urge my colleague, the chairman of the
subcommittee, to try and do something to get this money back in here or
at least a little because the agency serves an enormously valuable
purpose. Without it there will be no coherence in the environmental
policies of the United States, and I think that that would be a
calamity.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments the
gentleman is making regarding CEQ. I really thought it would be
appropriate to refer to the language that is in the report regarding
this matter, for we agree, the committee agrees, that the work of CEQ
in many ways has been very valuable, but we go on to say that the
committee is nevertheless concerned that greater oversight and
coordination of environmental policy and actions of the many Federal
departments and agencies is necessary. Far too often environmental
policy, as articulated by the White House, bears no relationship to the
actual implementation of that policy. It is our concern, and frankly I
will say to the gentleman that between now and conference I would hope
to look with great care as to what continuing contributions CEQ could
make.
Mr. DINGELL. I certainly hope so, because I observe to my good friend
that this has been the Agency which has rendered coherent the policies
of the Federal Government on the environment, and without it and
without this money I do not think we could look forward to the same
process being as successful as it has been heretofore.

[[Page H 8021]]

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
The Clerk will designate title IV.
The text of title IV is as follows:

TITLE IV

CORPORATIONS

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 1996
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.

Resolution Trust Corporation

office of inspection general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended $11,400,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
The Clerk will designate title V.
The text of title V is as follows:

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 501. 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
therefor in the budget estimates submitted for the
appropriations: Provided, 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 therefor set forth in the estimates in the same
proportion.
Sec. 502. 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 law (5
U.S.C. 5901-5902); hire of passenger motor vehicles; and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 503. 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, Resolution Trust Corporation, 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. 504. 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. 505. 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. 506. 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 his domicile and his place of employment,
with the exception of any officer or employee authorized
such transportation under title 31, United States Code,
section 1344.
Sec. 507. 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. 508. None of the funds provided 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. 509. None of the funds 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. 510. 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 twenty-four 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. 511. 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. 512. Except as otherwise provided in section 506, 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. 513. 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. 514. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1996 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
Sec. 515. 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. 516. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--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) Notice Requirement.--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. 517. 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. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, 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.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, we communicated a good deal of this in the initial
stages of the bill, but I would like to have the Members know one more
time just how

[[Page H 8022]]
much I appreciate the very, very positive and constructive working
relationship that I have had with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes]. He was my chairman during the last Congress. His
friendship is very important to me, and I must say that during this
process of transition, working together has been extremely positive in
spite of the fact that the shift in policy direction is not necessarily
always to the agreement of the gentleman. He has been willing to
communicate at every step of the way and has been very cooperative and
helpful in the process, and I appreciate that.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STOKES. I would like to say how much I appreciate the comments of
the chairman of the subcommittee, and I would just like to say in
return that working with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has
been one of the most enriching experiences of my career here in the
Congress, and I think I said this on other occasions, but I reiterate
it here again, that notwithstanding whatever philosophical changes or
difference now exist as a result of the majority changing in this
Congress, working with the gentleman from California has been an
experience which has meant a great deal to me. I have enjoyed
cooperating and working with him, and while we have changed
chairmanships, from myself over to him, I do want him to know that I
have enjoyed working very closely with him and look forward to a
continued personal relationship of the kind that we have had.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman
very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I have an amendment that is
currently filed at the desk that would bar the Federal Government from
making any per diem payments to a State veterans administration nursing
home if that nursing home has undergone privatization which results in
the diminution of services or care to the veterans, the quality of
their health care, or quality of life. It is my understanding, Mr.
Chairman, that in your judgment the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
currently has this authority and would indeed be required under current
law to bar per diem payments to any State nursing home who sees a
decline in the quality of care following a privatization of services.

{time} 1515

Since in your judgment, Mr. Chairman, this authority is already
vested in the department, I assume it is your judgment that it would be
unnecessary for the House to reaffirm this authority.
Because we share a concern with a possible privatization in the
district of the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], but in the
county which we jointly represent, I would like at this time, Mr.
Chairman, to yield to Mrs. Roukema.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, actually I wanted to hear from the
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], his observations regarding our
understanding concerning the existing legislation that controls this
issue.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding the
intent of the gentleman's amendment is already existent in current law,
and the Department of Veterans Affairs has the legal authority to
withhold these payments if the concerns that the gentleman has made
come to fruition.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, if the privatization of a Federal-State
nursing home were to happen, and the concerns I enumerated, such as a
decrease in the number of nurses or other tangible signs of a decrease
in the quality of care provided to the veterans would occur, the
Federal Government has the legal authority to withhold per diem
payments to that facility.
Mr. Chairman, the concurrence of the gentleman from California,
Chairman Lewis, with this judgment and his commitment to work with me
and the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, to require that the
VA take this action seriously, is extremely important. I take from the
gentleman's comments, Mr. Chairman, that indeed is the belief and
commitment of the gentleman of California [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield,
my colleagues from the committee have my commitment.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. If the gentleman would yield further, I certainly
appreciate the assurance of the gentleman from California, Chairman
Lewis, and would like to make some important observations of my own.
Mr. Chairman, over the last few days I have conducted extensive
research on Mr. Torricelli's amendment. We have confirmed several key
points:
Whether our Paramus home is operated by State employees, private
contractors or some combination of the two, one thing is clear:
Responsibility for the quality of care at the home will not change.
It rests with the New Jersey Commissioner for Veterans Affairs as
monitored by the New Jersey Department of Health and enforced by the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA's quality assurance
program, as outlined in subchapter 5 of chapter 17 of title 38 of the
United States Code, includes precise standards on both the range and
the quality of care and--this is critical--an enforcement regime.
Throughout the State's privatization study, I have expressed serious
reservations. In fact, based on recent bids, I believe this proposal
will not go forward.
Our State commissioner of veterans affairs, Gen. Paul Glazer sat in
my office last Wednesday and pledged that the quality of care will not
be diminished whether services are contracted out or not. I know that
to be his commitment, the Governor's commitment and the New Jersey
legislatures.
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to our veterans, we cannot ignore our
sacred commitment to protect them in their time of need, just as they
served us in our time of need. We must preserve, protect and enhance
the quality of care at the veterans' health care facilities around the
country, including our veterans' memorial home at Paramus.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, I
appreciate my colleagues bringing this matter to my attention. I assure
both Members we will continue to work with them. If our good offices
will help open the channels of communication with the Department of
Veterans Affairs, we are happy to be of service.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gentleman from California. The
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] joined with me in this, and
the bipartisan leadership of the New Jersey legislature, to assure that
we will watch the Paramus Nursing Home, the quality of its care, the
numbers of nurses, the quality of the food, to ensure that these
people, who served our country so well, are not jeopardized.
Mr. Chairman, I will not ask for my amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Porter) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, 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. 2099)
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, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________