Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 322       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I must say, between you and Ms. Sheehan the point has been well made, and this is not a problem that's going to disappear. Section 8 funding on the one hand, we've got a very big challenge ahead of us. But many of these issues are driven also by authorization or lack of authorization.

    So I hope that all those that are interested in both section 8 and section 11 will help us with that process.

    Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you very much.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You have heard the chairman's point of absolutely good. You've got to go after the authorizing committee as well as work with us. Thank you very much.

    Mr. SPERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

 Page 323       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
WITNESS

ANDREA STAMPS, DETROIT RESCUE MISSION MINISTRIES

    Mr. LEWIS. Andrea Stamps, Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries. We've been telling everyone that your entire statement will be in the record, and you can summarize if you'd like.

    Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I might introduce her just briefly to you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Sure.

    Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity, and the members of the Subcommittee to allow us to come before you, and certainly for considering this request what we is one of the most important that we do in our part of the world.

    As you know, Detroit Rescue Mission is a social agency that has saved millions of lives, and families, and children; ability to continue in the world. They are connected with over 600 churches in our area, and they really offer a service.

    It's my pleasure to present to you one of our finest, and she'll turn her own story, and how the mission has helped her, and how we move forward. I can submit a copy of my introduction for the record. And let me present to you Ms. Andrea Stamps.

 Page 324       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. STAMPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Welcome to the Committee, and I want you to know that beyond your statement, which will be included in the record, your presence here is very much appreciated.

    Ms. STAMPS. I would like to thank the members of the VA HUD Subcommittee for providing us an opportunity to appear before you.

    My name is Andrea Stamps and I am 40 years of age, and for 25 years I have used all types of drugs.

    For the past 21 months I have been substance-free. I am currently employed with the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries as the administrative assistant to the executive vice president.

    I am proud to appear before this Subcommittee, and announce to you that my life has been transformed through the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries.

    Before going to the Mission I lived on the streets of Detroit; I was addicted to drugs and alcohol. My drug of choice was crack cocaine and my closest friends were drug dealers and drug addicts. I used my welfare check and my food stamps to buy my drugs.

    I was emotionally and physically abused by my boyfriend and I was suicidal. I have had my stomach pumped because of cocaine poisoning. I'm a single mother of three boys, born out of wedlock by two men. These men did nothing to help raise my children.
 Page 325       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I was first exposed to drugs by my mother, who was a drug user, and on Martin Luther King's birthday in 1990, the police raided our house, and they pointed guns at my children and myself. It was a nightmare. They found drugs and my mother did serve time in prison.

    I began living in homeless shelters throughout the city of Detroit in an attempt to stop using drugs. Unfortunately, I was not successful at all. Every job I held, I held to support my drug habit. I would leave work on a Friday with a full paycheck, and I would disappear into the drug houses of Detroit for days at a time. I didn't care about anybody or anyone, not even my children, and their disrespect for me grew.

    Before my hope ran out completely I found the Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries. They took me in, they fed me, they clothed me, and they loved me. Ultimately, they helped me to heal my life.

    The Mission has transformed my life physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Today I am involved in my church, the Old World African Methodist Church. In fact, one of my fellow parishioners is Congresswoman Kilpatrick.

    I now have my own home, and with the help of the ministry I was able to furnish it. I plan to return to school to receive my bachelor's degree in business administration.

    Mr. Chairman, I appear before you, not as a lobbyist, not as a lawyer, and certainly not as any kind of legislative expert. I appear before you today as a woman and a mother of three, a citizen concerned about the homelessness and drug addicted-people of Detroit and throughout our Nation.
 Page 326       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Detroit Rescue Ministries offers hope for the hopeless, care and love to the forgotten, and healing for the mind, body, and soul. We serve the last, the least, and the lost. I know because I was one of them. My life was transformed by the Mission.

    The Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries has been working since 1909 to help the poor, the addicted, and the homeless become self-sufficient. We continue to operate 80 percent of our budget through private donations, but even as we are rebuilding our lives, our physical infrastructure is crumbling.

    We lack the necessary funds to repair the leaking roofs, the crumbling walls, and the broken boilers. We need to build a wheelchair access ramp and install fire detection devices.

    Mr. Chairman, our total budget for restoring our seven facilities is $12.5 million. We are seeking a $1.5 million Federal investment towards our budget. These funds would help make the necessary infrastructure and improvement so that the Mission can offer a safe environment while transforming the lives of more people like my former self.

    We would really appreciate your support. Thank you and God bless you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for being here.

    Congresswoman Kilpatrick, this kind of testimony is very, very helpful to me.
 Page 327       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Let me mention to Ms. Stamps. Earlier we had a brief discussion of early childhood education, and some history of that legislation. I'll never forget that a professor at USC in Southern California talking about children's patterns in school, very poignantly documented the fact that a child's success in school is directly related to that child's mother's attitude towards education. And that it's very, very apparent that you have a great contribution to make ahead of you, and I appreciate very much your coming to us today.

    Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I'm happy that you came and your testimony was very, very descriptive. And I do hope the $1 million is a small amount to reinforce the investment that this mission has made in your life.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Knollenberg.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I too want to praise you for your testimony, along with my colleague Carolyn Kilpatrick. We think, I believe, along the same line. I certainly believe that what you're doing is very worthwhile. You've been to my office. We've had that discussion, and we know something about the work that you do.

    So I commend you, what you're doing.

    Ms. STAMPS. Thank you. Thank you very much.

 Page 328       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. And we'll look earnestly, as the Chairman I'm sure has pointed out, anything that we can possibly help support you.

    Mr. LEWIS. I thank you for your courage, and God bless you.

    Ms. STAMPS. Thank you.

    Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the Committee's time.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

SUNIA ZATERMAN, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF LARGE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES

    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Sunia Zaterman, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities.

    Ms. ZATERMAN. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, I want to thank you for inviting us to testify today.
 Page 329       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As you know, CLPHA's membership is comprised of the largest housing authorities in the country. They collectively own and operate about 40 percent of the public housing in the country and a significant share of the section 8 program.

    Mr. Lewis we appreciated your stirring remarks at the CLPHA meeting in February, particularly your call in 1998 The Year of Public Housing. We're making a banner of that now and putting it in our office. It's a means for inspiration. But as you might imagine, recent events have caused considerable alarm and concern that 1998 may not be the year we expected.

    First the House action to rescind $2.2 billion of section 8 reserves, as you might imagine, caused great consternation. Not only because we're concerned about the stability of the section 8 program and the 1.4 million household that is served, but also the precedent it sets in robbing the already much pillaged housing funds for other domestic and military uses.

    And just as an aside on the section 8 program, we hope that you will discontinue the 3-month delay in the issuance of certificates. There's a high administrative cost. People are going without housing assistance and the savings supposedly required are no longer needed.

    Second, as you well know, we're without an authorizing bill, despite the broad consensus on the provisions of the bill.

    Mr. LEWIS. Beg your pardon?
 Page 330       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. ZATERMAN. We're without an authorizing bill, despite broad consensus on a number of the provisions of the authorizing bill.

    Mr. LEWIS. Beg your pardon? [Laughter.]

    Ms. ZATERMAN. I am willing to admit your acceptance to that.

    But certainly we're grateful to you and the help of Senator Bond in continuing to extend those provisions in the appropriations bill. But just as you've stated yourself, we all know that it's not a substitute for permanent authorization, and housing authorities are reluctant to move forward on a one-year lease for sweeping policy and operation changes.

    Third, the HUD budget request does not meet our needs and does not address modernization operating subsidy needs. The operating subsidy request according to our estimate is somewhere around $300 million short of what's needed. And even OMB acknowledges that $2.1 billion is needed just to address the normal wear and tear issues associated with the public housing stock, so we're not even close to addressing the capital backlog needs in public housing.

    We would urge you to consider reallocation of reserves that are no longer required under other programs to supplement the HUD budget request on modernization.

    And another point I think is worth emphasizing in this area, is that modernization effectively and efficiently addresses the secretary's aim to enhance employment in the inner cities. The multiplier effect in the marketplace is that $1 billion in construction creates at least 18,000 jobs in construction and the production of supplies and materials. So this is a job development and economic development program as well.
 Page 331       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    There is a positive side, and we see HOPE VI as a harbinger for the bold changes that can be realized in public housing to meaningful direct capital grants.

    Your support of the program has been very critical. In cities across the country, in Newark, in Milwaukee, in Louisville, Atlanta, Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, D.C., as you know well in your field trips with the receiver, we have seen some very dramatic transformations taking place.

    We're renewing neighborhoods while we're improving the quality of the lives of residents and the communities that are surrounding public housing. However, HUD's emerging total development cost policy that regulates how the HOPE VI funds would be spent is a great concern to us, and we're concerned that it will set back our aim to make dramatic transformation in neighborhoods.

    We've discussed our concerns and recommendations with your very able staff, and we would be available to talk about that further.

    Other areas, such as the Drug Elimination Program and the Supportive Service programs, has demonstrated tangible results in public housing, and we look forward to continued support for those programs.

    In terms of our hopes for reasonable funding levels, we would ask for $3.156 billion for operating subsidy, $3.7 billion for modernization and capital funding, $550 million for HOPE VI, $350 million for Drug Elimination, and $75 million for Supportive Services.
 Page 332       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Thank you very much for your continued support of the public housing program.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Zaterman. We must say for the record we have ahead of us the supplemental conference. What that will do relative to outset requirements and so on, we're all looking forward to it with a good deal of interest.

    But having said that, as trying to respond partially to your concerns about section 8, which the Committee shares with you, we have received assurances at every level, conceivable level that counts around here, that they are too sensitive about this problem, and in one way or another in the budget process the challenge will be met.

    So from there let us hope that we have a Year of Public Housing in the Congress as well.

    Ms. ZATERMAN. The year's not over yet.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you for appearing today.

    Mr. LEWIS. Gentlemen.

    Thank you very much. Appreciate your being here.
 Page 333       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

LAVERNE R. JOSEPH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE AGING

    Mr. LEWIS. Isn't it quite amazing that we're almost on schedule.

    For the morning, our last witness is Laverne Joseph, who's with the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.

    Ms. Joseph, nice to see you one more time this morning.

    Ms. JOSEPH.Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, again, and members of the committee; Mrs. Meek, Mr. Frelinghuysen. And of course Valerie Baldwin, staff member here.

 Page 334       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    It's good to be back here again. I'm pleased to be representing the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, which is the largest nonprofit association that represents members who provide housing and services for seniors. The members currently manage and largely own about 300,000 units of market rate and largely section 202 housing.

    Again, congratulations on receiving the Distinguished Service Award. It was a real privilege for me to present that to you in your home district. It was a wonderful day. And I also want to thank you and Congresswoman Meek for your wonderful statements, inspiring statement this morning out of Housing Coalition press conference, as well as for what you did in amending the budget last year from $300 million to $645 million for 1998.

    And because I know you know the issues so well, I'm like the preacher who found only three or four people in the congregation, and therefore felt he didn't have to deliver the whole load, because you know the issues. And you're happy to see me, because I'm the last speaker before lunch, and so I'll keep it short.

    You were not there—you had to leave for other appointments—when the opinion poll was discussed. Does the American public favor senior housing? The survey included over 1,000 persons and found that 90 percent of them favor the maintenance or the expansion of affordable senior housing through nonprofit providers.

    To be specific, 59 percent favor expansion and 31 percent favor at least maintaining the status quo. And then the other main point out of this survey is the need and the response. And as I said in my remarks this morning, we have the demographics going one way and the production going the other way, and you know that.
 Page 335       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    So the quick points that I want to make, the 202 program works, it is working, it will continue to work, and we know that you're going to help us to keep it working.

    Just as kind of a point of humor, one of my friends gave this to me and found it in the Dulles Airport, and said it pretty much reflects what seems to happen year after year, but hopefully this is the time that we're not going to have to keep going back to this every year. ''If it ain't broke, fix it until it is''. It's a bumper sticker. And that's what was tried this year with the 202 program. Again, but thanks to your effort it's not going to be broken.

    We're asking that the funding be restored to the 1996 level, which is $850 million. Much of that funding can be readily identified by Secretary Cuomo when he appeared before the Committee.

    The HOME Program, we didn't want 202 fold in the HOME. HUD has now taken that off the table, and it doesn't appear that that's going to be given any serious discussion, at least this year.

    Vouchers don't work. We've talked about the reason why they don't work for seniors. They're a good program, but service enriched housing for seniors is a quality of life and a very effective efficient way to deliver these services for a frail person.

    And then funding of social service coordinators. Funding of social service coordinators needs to be set at $25 million. It's very valuable. And you're aware of Mr. Lazio's bill, H.R. 3635, which is going to address the debt restructuring, and I hope that all members of the Committee will sign on in a total sponsorship position. And then providing funding for modernization and retrofit. You're aware of that too.
 Page 336       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    That's the abbreviated load. I know the Committee's going to do the right thing, not only because of what you said this morning, but because you have a history of doing the right thing, and we're going to work and support you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Joseph, we very much appreciate your abbreviated testimony. You've got Mrs. Meek so excited that she decided to have lunch early. [Laughter.]

    But I did want to mention that we happen to have a Committee right now who will succumb——

    Mrs. MEEK. Just like men normally do their duty——

    Mr. LEWIS. I have been very much looking forward to this, and you've been very helpful to us.

    So we appreciate your being with us and look forward to working with you.

    Ms. JOSEPH. My pleasure.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, ma'am.

    Ms. JOSEPH. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 337       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LEWIS. The meeting will be in recess until we come back at 1:00. In the meantime, we will continue our public witness testimony in this room at 1:00 p.m. Thank you very much.

    [Recess.]

     

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

MARY PAVEL, GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

    Mr. LEWIS. Mary Pavel, welcome to the Committee. We'll be glad to receive your testimony.

    Ms. PAVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sending regards of Mr. James Schlender, the Executive Administrator of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. He's, unfortunately, unable to be here with us today.

 Page 338       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    My name is, for the record, Mary Pavel, and on behalf of the 11 member tribal governments of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the Administration's fiscal year 1999 EPA budget.

    The Commission's fiscal year 1999 request centers on two major objectives: support for the EPA's Coastal Environmental Management Program and its continued funding of tribal participation in intergovernmental partnerships to develop, coordinate, and implement tribal strategies to protect the Lakes' ecosystem in conjunction with the Binational Program the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan, the International Joint Commission meetings, and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference at a cost of $70,000. The second objective is the need to expand cooperative contaminant studies for fish, animals, plants, used by tribal members under rights reserved in the 1837 and 1840 treaties with the United States at a cost of $104,476.

    The Commission is comprised of 11 tribal governments located throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The Commission's purpose is to protect and enhance treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish, and gather on inland territories ceded under the Chippewa Treaty; to protect and enhance treaty guaranteed fishing on the Great Lakes, and to provide cooperative management protection of these resources. The tribal members rely on fish, wildlife, and plants for religious, ceremonial, and medicinal subsistant economic and cultural purposes. The importance of Lake Superior and its environment is documented in the history and culture of the Anishinabe people.

    Because Lake Superior is so important to the tribes, the tribes are vitally concerned about its welfare. For tribes participate in protection initiatives to restore and protect this resource they need to work with other jurisdictions on a government to government basis and strong governmental institutions to enable effective participation. These needs are consistent with the goals of the EPA' Indian policy which are to promote self-government and work with tribes on a government to government basis.
 Page 339       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    To further EPA's policy and address needs, adequate long-term funding will be necessary to enable sustained participation and initiatives to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Commission is requesting that Congress earmark $70,000 from the Great Lakes National Program Office or the Coastal Environmental Management Program to provide a grant to enable the Commission to continue its participation in environmental policy making and, two, to provide funds for technical projects so that the Commission is able to contribute to the technical working groups and adequately review technical documents.

    EPA funding will be used by GLIFWC—GLIFWC is a short name for the Commission—to research environmental issues, facilitate discussions, and build consensus between the tribal leaders and develop formal positions to be forwarded to the appropriate agencies. These efforts would compliment the ongoing efforts by the Commission member tribes to develop and advance their governmental positions.

    Funding for the EPA is also needed to facilitate the Commission's long-term participation in the Binational Program and to restore and protect Lake Superior. The Commission proposes to participate in both the Binational Program's task force of senior governmental natural resource managers and work groups composed of technical and scientific professionals.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close. If you have any questions——

    Mr. LEWIS. I certainly don't have any questions, but we do appreciate your providing testimony, and it will be included in its entirety in the record.
 Page 340       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. PAVEL. Thank you.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being here.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

LARRY SCHWARTZKOPF, NATIONAL RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER, FOND DU LAC NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM

    Mr. LEWIS. Larry Schwartzkopf, representing the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, welcome.

    Mr. SCHWARTZKOPF. Thank you. I wish to thank the Chairman and the Committee for this opportunity to present the appropriation request and the testimony for the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. My name is Larry Schwartzkopf, and I am the Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program Manager. Chairman Peacock sends his regrets that he could not be present today. Along with my testimony, I'd like to provide some additional background materials of mercury contamination and a letter from Representative Willard Munger from the State legislature in Minnesota, and also some popular research papers of the neurological effect of methylmercury on children.
 Page 341       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We'll include it in our file.

    Mr. SCHWARTZKOPF. Thank you, sir.

    The Fond du Lac Band is an old band. The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and the reservation is located about 20 miles west of Duluth, Minnesota. In my testimony today, I'd like to stress the importance of the continued funding of the Indian Housing Program. This program continues to provide affordable housing to families on the Fond du Lac Reservation that could not afford to obtain adequate housing in another locality. This program has been run efficient and run effectively over the years by the organization.

    We also would like to express the importance of continued funding of the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program. This is very important to the Reservation and many of other Reservations across the country now. Fond du Lac and some of the other bands in Minnesota were some of the first Reservations that have organized and operate these programs on Reservations, and we recommend that the President's budget of $42.6 million be included in the EPA's budget for this program.

    Our most urgent appropriation request is to obtain $275,000 for continued funding of a cooperative research project entitled, the Sediment Contaminant Mitigation and Prevention for Mercury. This research project between the Fond du Lac Reservation and the University of Minnesota Duluth and the University of Wisconsin-Superior in developing an effective and efficient mitigation technology to sequester and also potentially other heavy metals in PCB in highly contaminated sediments and also on lakes and streams that have more benign but actually significant levels of mercury from aerial deposition to prevent the bionic uptake of mercury into the aquatic food chain. This will result in lower levels of mercury in game fish in our region and other areas, and help to improve and protect the health of generations to come.
 Page 342       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We need the continued funding to continue this research. A few years ago, we were given $100,000 from Congress and another $100,000 from the Great Lakes National Program Office of the EPA, and this fund was not enough to establish the effectiveness of this technology. We need the funds to complete our research and to fully test and develop this technology in the field. What we are using is a benign form of a highly—of iron which has a small particle size and is very effective at binding mercury in some cases, also, in other heavy metals and even PCB.

    Mercury causes neurological disorders especially in fetuses and young children. Studies have shown and been shown that they have this effect in the current research and all of our research may result in even tightening of fish consumption advisories in the future. Many Native American communities continue to rely on fish as a large part of their diet. Many other citizens in other regions in other parts of the country consume fish which is contaminated with mercury and other heavy metals, and we are seeking support not only from the Minnesota delegation but also hopefully from Wisconsin, Michigan, Northeastern States in this request. Mercury entering our Nation's waters from precipitation continues to increase and although some improvements have been seen from acid rain regulations, the increased area of deposition of mercury and projected increases in the use of coal and electrical power generation into the next century will result in increased levels of mercury that will contaminate the fish and result, thereby, in fisheries basically, being unsafe for consumption on many water bodies.

    I guess I would like to stress that this technology is transferrable. It is not only effective for our region but for western States possibly from minor run-off; northeastern States that have the problem, and certainly the Great Lake States. Thank you very much, sir, for your time.
 Page 343       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. First, I appreciate very much you being here as well. I appreciate you bringing your son with you. Any other comments that you have along with these materials will be included in the record in our file and thank you. Any questions from the members? No, thank you very much.

    Mr. SCHWARTZKOPF. Thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

WITNESS

GLENN A. GRANT, ESQ., BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

STANLEY BERGEN, JR., MD, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. LEWIS. We're going to just slightly readjust our order here. One of our colleagues is present to introduce a couple of guests, so they'll pick up the next two segments. Representative Donald Payne, Don, please come up.
 Page 344       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I believe first is Glenn Grant, is that——

    Mr. PAYNE. I'll just introduce them both.

    Mr. LEWIS. All right, that's fine.

    Mr. PAYNE. Can you please all come up to the table. I certainly enjoyed your presentation yesterday of a new member——

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. PAYNE [continuing]. From the great State of California, and it is good to see Mr. Walsh and, of course, my colleague, Congressman Frelinghuysen. He and I served in county government before wondering whether we would ever get here. [Laughter.]

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You did.

    Mr. PAYNE. So, really, let me just thank you, and I would like to take this opportunity to briefly make a few comments about two New Jersey witnesses with whom I have worked with for many, many years, and I let me just say I appreciate the responsiveness of the Subcommittee over the years. You have been very generous with our city, our region. We have many needs, and I do appreciate what has happened in the past.

    I have with us a gentleman from the city of Newark and also from the University of Medicine and Dentistry which just happens to be the largest public health science university in the United States of America. Testifying on behalf of my home city of Newark is our business administrator, Mr. Glenn Grant. Mayor Sharpe James was unable to be here, but he has truly made Newark a renaissance city. It is just so—the that work that he's done with the help of this committee, we have an economic renaissance and he really restored a tremendous sense of pride in our city. As you know, in 1967, we had civil disorder, but the city has come back tremendously. Glen Grant is the chief operating officer of Newark's largest city, Newark; over 4,000 employees with a budget of $900 million, and during his tenure as business administrator, he has had a very strong fiscal operation this year. We'll see a reduction in the tax rate. We'll see a reduction in water utilities, all of which has happened under the leadership of Mayor James, but the administration of Glen Grant. He will testify today about the economic revitalization initiatives to our city, specifically, a project called Waverly Yards, the establishment of an international trade center and the development of brownfield sites to convert on that productive use.
 Page 345       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The other person we'll hear from is testifying on behalf of the University of Medicine and Dentistry will be Dr. Stanley Bergen who actually is retiring from the institution. Dr. Bergen has been the president of the institution since its inception in 1971—seems like it was 1901, but it was 1971. [Laughter.]

    But Dr. this is—I feel privileged that this is his last public appearance that I actually will have the opportunity to introduce him because he's done a fantastic job for the city of Newark and for the State of New Jersey and for health care in general. Under his leadership, stewardship, the university has emerged as the largest public university of health services in the country serving as the national resource for health professional education, research, and patient care.

    Prior to assuming the presidency of UMDNJ, Dr. Bergen was the Senior Vice President for Medical and Professional Affairs of New York City's Health and Hospice Corporation. Dr. Bergen has been recognized with many impressive awards and honors over the course of his distinguished career. Again, I appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in issues related to public health.

    I thank you for having Dr. Bergen; the international set-up for public health at University Heights Science Park; the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute named after a colleague who served on the Appropriations Committee, Dean Gallo, who was also entirely official with us, a tremendous person; it was borne out of the determination to help patients afflicted with prostrate cancer, and finally, the Child Health Institute of New Jersey, a project intended to address the prevention and cure of illnesses affecting children.
 Page 346       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Thank you very much. I will now turn the remaining time over to my colleagues.

    Mr. LEWIS. Congressman Payne, we thank you very much for being with us. I know the difficulty of conflicting schedules and the like. First, let me call upon Mr. Grant, the administrator from New Jersey; from Newark.

    Mr. GRANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be in the record, Mr. Grant.

    Mr. GRANT. Thank you. I briefly would like to talk to you about, number one, the importance of your cooperation and help. This subcommittee has really, truly been a partner in the city of most revitalization. Congressman Payne referred to former Congressman Gallo. He was instrumental in securing a $44 million EPA grant that's helping to improve the sewer systems of the city of Newark. This committee has helped through the renaissance that Congressman Payne is talking about.

    So, I'm here today to talk to you while we've created, as Congressman has said, a renaissance that's generating a new baseball stadium, a new performing arts center, we're working on the riverfront; we're trying to bring more jobs back to our community, but there's much work still to be done. We have a significant older population. We're the third oldest large city in the country founded in 1666. We have significant unemployment in our community. Fifteen percent of our population is unemployed, and we have a mean population of—37 percent of our children are below the poverty line. We have lost many of our jobs to the loss of manufacturing in our community, and what we're attempting to do with these projects is to bring economic development to our inner city where the people can match up the job skills with the job opportunities that are taking place in our community.
 Page 347       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Newark International Airport is the ninth largest airport in the country. It is also one of the fastest, largest, fastest growing airports in the country as well. Over 30 million people will go to that airport this year alone. The airport, which is our tenant, is now working on bringing the monorail which ties in our three terminals to a location called Waverly Yards. That is 100-acre tract of land that is vacant, abandoned; it is an old industrial yard. When they bring the monorail to that site, they are also going to tie it to the Northeast corridor. The same trains that Congressman Payne and Congressman Frelinghuysen take to come to Washington, it will tie into that particular location. We believe that that location can serve as another economic engine for the continued revitalization of the city of Newark.

    Right now, there's no water; there's no communication lines; there's no sewer lines; it is not served by any kind of infrastructure. We're asking this committee for an appropriation of $6 million to help us revitalize that area. We believe that 3 million people at the airport together with 70,000 people that come in every day to our Penn Station, you have unparalleled transportation location. We have talked with developers about potentially bringing two office centers, two hotels, and an international trade center for that location, so we think it is one of the best transportation hubs in our community.

    The second project that I'd like to talk to you about involves Frelinghuysen Avenue. As you should be aware——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. GRANT. As you should be aware are Kennedy's. They really have had a long and outstanding history of support for public service, and Congressman Frelinghuysen has continued that with his support of new projects. Adjacent to our airport, adjacent to this Waverly Yards is Frelinghuysen Avenue. It is a land area with many vacant and abandoned industrial properties. Many of the properties have environmental contamination. Many of them need to be reclaimed. We are now partnering with EPA; partnering with our State government to do studies on those sites. We believe that if we can take $3 million from this committee, we will be able to reclaim some of those city-old, vacant, and abandoned sites to, again, take advantage of our transportation hub; to take advantage of what our community has: transportation, transportation.
 Page 348       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The last project that I would like to talk to you about—and Dr. Bergen is also here to talk about it—is a tremendously exciting project, and it has the opportunity of bringing thousands of jobs to Newark. It is called Science Park. It is a joint public-private partnership involving the State, Federal Government, the county, and the city. It is to take advantage of the tremendous asset known as the University of Medicine and Dentistry. That asset, as Congressman Payne has said, is one of the best medical institutions in the country, if not the world, but what we're trying to do is to take advantage of the biomedical locations here, the infrastructure that is in that institution as well as NJIT to bring public health research; to bring industry and businesses of that light to that location. We believe that an appropriation of $9 million can leverage another $130 million of public-private investment into that institution.

    I want to close by telling you gentlemen that in coming over and talking to Ms. Thompson who is our lobbyist, we are reminded of your tremendous support in developing our community. When you look at the last 20 years of investment in our city, there's been no other subcommittee that has done as much for the city of Newark as you gentleman who are sitting here today. So, I want to thank you for your cooperation and ask for your support for this initiative.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Grant. As I indicated, it will be included in its entirety in the record.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

 Page 349       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Before I allow Mr. Frelinghuysen to take over this meeting, I'd like to call upon Dr. Bergen to see if he'd like to summarize his statement as well.

    Dr. BERGEN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. Congressman Frelinghuysen, Congressman Payne from New Jersey, and Congressman Walsh, thank you very much for this opportunity.

    I can only echo what you have already heard about this subcommittee and how important it has been to us, and I think the most important thing is that we have been able to join together with the subcommittee in working together to provide our fellow citizens with the opportunities to fulfill their dreams but also to answer to their needs as citizens of the State and of the United States.

    The first project I'd like to mention is one that Mr. Grant already alluded to, the International Center for Public Health. This is an attempt to create a major infectious disease center in New Jersey. This is rapidly becoming a major problem not only to the United States but to the world with the emergence of resistant organisms that antibodies cannot touch; cannot control, and the entire operation of this institute is going to be directed towards that. We're bringing the Public Health Research Institute from Manhattan over to New Jersey. They are doing research in this area right now and working, of course, with the pharmaceutical industry in New Jersey, it will be a very important team.

    In addition, we are working together with the Veterans' Administration in East Orange and nationally to approach the issue of resistant tuberculosis. This is becoming a more and more prevalent disease in the VA system and nationally and also in prisons. More and more TB is emerging in prisons, and these people are released then into the communities; they carry this resistant TB along with them, and it is just an unending battle and an unending fight. We've got to attack this; we've got to find some solutions to this major problem.
 Page 350       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    It is also, of course, related to a major HUD project to expand the economic and community development needs of our area. We've already heard Mr. Grant say this is a really joint public-private effort. We have a potential insurance company, First Union Bank, public service, gas and electric, all joining with us for this effort. We are respectfully asking of the Subcommittee an allocation of $5 million to the International Center for Public Health.

    The second project is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostrate Cancer Institute. New Jersey ranks 10th in the Nation in mortality rates for prostatic cancer; it is 8th in mortality in Afro-Americans, and, currently, there is no cure for this disease. Once it spreads external to the prostate, it is a major disease and one that needs attack by both research efforts and clinical studies. To accomplish this, our Cancer Institute in New Jersey, the only NCI designated cancer center in our State has decided to develop this focused attempt on finding the cure of prostatic cancer. This institute allows us to link over 100 institutions that are affiliated with us statewide, 3 medical schools, a dental school, a tremendous series of educational programs in order to bring to bear the research efforts of all those institutions on this disease. It, of course, is a prime disease in the VA system where many of the recipients of care to VA hospitals are now at the age group where they are contracting prostatic cancer. It is also, of course, a very important issue for our fight in the impact of urbanization and the possible toxic effects in that urbanization and, of course, with New Jersey being the most urbanized State in the Union, we have a major problem. We respectfully, again, ask the Subcommittee to consider an allocation of $5 million to the Betty and Dean Gallow Prostatic Cancer Institute.

    And the third and last project that I'd like to bring to your attention is the Child Health Institute of New Jersey. This is another public-private effort, and I am proud to say we have already received a gift from the Johnson and Johnson Corporation, one of the largest health care product corporations in the world and from the Johnson Foundation to get this project started, $850,000. We hope to study the diseases and the affect of these diseases on child development and child maturation. We have a children's hospital, and medical school, the private institutions that are all joining together to develop the Child Health Institute, and, again, we would like to respectfully ask your allocation of $5 million to this project in New Jersey for your university.
 Page 351       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I thank you very much, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Bergen and Mr. Grant, we appreciate very much your testimony. Congressman Payne, we appreciate your assistance as well. I guess you are leaving Mr. Walsh. I think I probably ought to call upon Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. WALSH. Without objection.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In the interest of brevity and knowing that the Chairman has a lot of other witnesses, I'm certainly here to endorse and work with my colleague, Don Payne. The Chairman has been, indeed, very sympathetic over a number of years to both Members of both parties on this Committee not only to the City's objectives as well as the University of Medicine and Dentistry and we will be hearing from Betty Gallo in a few minutes, and she will be articulating the need for a prostrate cancer center, but I am so pleased to welcome all of you here and to be working with you and this committee to help you achieve all of these objectives, and good luck to you in your retirement, Dr. Bergen.

    Dr. BERGEN. Thank you.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mrs. MEEK. I just wanted to say you must be all right, because you are with Congressman Payne——

 Page 352       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [Laughter.]

    Mrs. MEEK [continuing]. Trying to increase the half-year and you are doing redevelopment work and that is always excellent.

    Dr. BERGEN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. I would just like to suggest that this chairman has done a marvelous job. He has lots of difficult decisions, but one thing he has not been afraid to do is to reinvest in our cities. We absolutely have to do that. I have always said that our cities are babies. They are 100 to 200 years old; the rest of the world has cities that are 800, 1000, 1,500 years old, and they are still going, and we need to do the same and reinvest in ours, and it is easy to see why Newark is coming back with managers like yourself. Thank you.

    Dr. BERGEN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is kind of appropriate, it seems to me—Congressman Payne, if you will be patient with me—is as we receive this testimony, you have laid the foundation for us kind of to go back in our schedule and call upon Betty Gallo who's husband as you know was our colleague on the Appropriations Committee who played no small role in the success that Newark and New Jersey, generally, have had, and you are working together. Most of these issues have nothing to do with partisan politics, and that is reflected in the best way by this series of testimony. Thank you for being with us.
 Page 353       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. GRANT. Thank you.

    Dr. BERGEN. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

WITNESS

BETTY GALLO, CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY, DEAN AND BETTY GALLO PROSTATE CANCER INSTITUTE

    Mr. LEWIS. I am sure that Betty Gallo kind of wondered about bypassing her. It was with some forethought, so, Ms. Gallo, would you come up? How's my friend?

    Ms. GALLO. Good.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good. Normally what we do is suggest that your entire testimony will be included in the record, and you can summarize it as you like. New Jersey is having its day today. I see that our former colleague, Bob Rose, is with us in the audience, and he will come shortly after. I am sure he will pick up everything beyond what we have talked about. Please, Betty.
 Page 354       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. GALLO. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify and Congressman Frelinghuysen who has been very helpful in this project as we are going to endeavor upon and the Committee for allowing me to testify today especially since my husband did serve on this committee when he was in Congress.

    I don't know if anyone is aware but Dean was diagnosed with prostate cancer back in 1992. In February, he was diagnosed with a PSA which is a Prostrate Specific Antigen blood test of 883. He was diagnosed in the advanced stages which had already metastasized to his bone. His prognosis was three to six months at that time. When he went to a urologist in New Jersey who said the best he could do was remove his testicles. I said, before you do that, I think we will try another approach. Thank God for the National Institutes of Health, because down there they are NCL designated. We were able to get him in there and do a protocol of Suramin and combined hormonal therapy, and because of this we were able to allow him to spend good quality of life for two and a half years.

    Dean and I had a very strong faith; very strong love for each other. It was the best two and half years of our relationship of eight years, and I cannot say that I am sorry he got prostate cancer, I am just sorry that he died from it.

    Mr. LEWIS. But the PSA was designated at 883 at the time of first exam, is that right?

    Ms. GALLO. Correct, and when he had his normal physical the year prior to having had the PSA, which was not at that time used as a diagnostic poll, they would have picked up on the prostrate cancer. So, that is why he was in the advanced stages, and the only way he found he was in the advanced stages was he had a backache which persisted, and he finally had it checked, and when they did a bone scan on him, he lit up like a christmas tree; it was all over his back. Fortunately, because of the Suramin and the National Institutes of Health through Dr. Charles Myers, he was able to actually have a very good quality of life where his PSA actually dropped a year later to 3.5, and he was able to continue in Congress, serve his constituents and his colleagues who he had the utmost respect for all of you. I know he had very good close friends with some of the people, his colleagues.
 Page 355       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In the meantime, after he died from prostate cancer in 1994, he and I had spoken about getting involved and doing advocacy work for prostate cancer. He was talking about getting pharmaceuticals companies involved, so I tried to get involved in prostate cancer advocacy which I have been doing ever since, and as of October, 1997 I joined the Cancer Institute of New Jersey as a fundraising associate advocate, and one of my projects there is the Dean and Betty Gallo Prostate Cancer Institute in memory of Dean.

    This will actually be a program added at the institute. It won't be for bricks and mortar; it will be for actual programs, education, and awareness for prostate cancer. We will doing some studies with the environment as far as why prostate cancer so prevalent in New Jersey. As Dr. Bergen had mentioned, we are number 10 this year of 6,900 men who will be diagnosed with prostate cancer of which 1,400 men will die from prostate cancer this year.

    As I said, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey is the only NCL designated institute in our State, and Dean was helpful in getting funding for that back in 1994, and it is because of this that I feel that having this kind of an institute in New Jersey is beneficial for all the residents of New Jersey. It allows them not to have to go out of the State and that you stay in the State and be able to get treated for any kind of cancers that we have, and with the Prostate Cancer Institute, because it is the second rated cancer in New Jersey for men—I think lung is the first in New Jersey—you really have to do something. We are number eight for the African-Americans, so that is another area that we need to really address for educational awareness programs. So, this is part of what the Gallo Institute will be doing. It will be doing programs; we already have researchers in our cancer institute that are doing prostate cancer research, but we need to bring more researchers in; good quality researchers to be able to do more research to find this cure for prostate cancer so that we are able to save people from dying from it or having to be diagnosed in the advanced stages of prostate cancer such as Dean was.
 Page 356       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We are asking, actually, for $9.4 million; $5 million actually from the Committee, and the other money would be raised dollar for dollar by foundations through public funding and State funding—this is a little difficult for me because—

    Mr. LEWIS. You are doing great.

    Ms. GALLO. It is just that it means a lot to me. Sometimes I really do still miss him.

    Mrs. MEEK. It is women like you that make us strong.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, Betty Gallo, while she lets her emotions out, let me say she is absolutely remarkable. Since Dean's passing, she has been an incredible advocate throughout the Northeast not only in New Jersey and the New York metropolitan area, she has demystified myths and stereotypes of prostate cancer in a way that only Betty could do it. She has some unique qualities and perspectives, and she talks to large groups of men; she is a strong advocate; she has been working with women's groups around the State, and there are many barriers for people to come forward for testing, and Betty Gallo has been one of those who has been absolutely fantastic. I am here to support her and know that all the good things she is doing is to make sure that other people never experience the tragedy that is associated with prostate and other types of cancer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen, I think you may or may not remember that the first occasion I had to meet you personally involved an occasion that was not the happiest occasion where I was with Betty and with Dean the last time, but we are proud to have you here and to say the least it is a very important project.
 Page 357       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. GALLO. Well, I appreciate it, and I thank you, Congressman Frelinghuysen, for your kind words and Congressman Lewis. It is just been something that I have been doing for over three years. To have this project in New Jersey would help me save somebody else from having to suffer emotionally and the family to suffer like we did and the loss of Dean and just to have to lost somebody else to this dreaded disease. I would just appreciate whatever the committee can do.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Gallo, one of the more delightful things that has occurred to our committee in recent years is that advent of our having the voice of Mrs. Carrie Meek in our committee. To say the least, she makes a special contribution, and I would love to call upon her.

    Mrs. MEEK. First of all, you have encouraged me as a member of this committee. Your courage and your ability to go forward despite the odds which you have faced, and I feel very strongly that you will not leave here empty-handed, not if I sit on this committee.

    Ms. GALLO. Thank you. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. We will allow you to revise and extend your remarks, but in the meantime, thank you very much for being with us.

    Ms. GALLO. I thank the Committee for allowing me to come.

 Page 358       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being here.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Isn't she great?

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESSES

ROBERT DAVENPORT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE COMMISSIONERS

SHELDON LIPKE

ROBERT ROE, FORMER CONGRESSMAN

    Mr. LEWIS. We are going to exercise the Chair's discretion one more time and recognize that we have got a former colleague in the audience who is going to participate in this meeting. My friend, Bob Roe, will be introducing and participating with two other people from the New Jersey region, I suppose—you'll clarify that won't you? Please come up and bring your friends.
 Page 359       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. ROE. Well, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for not only inviting us to testify but allowing us to testify on this matter that is extremely important for the State of New Jersey and really has to do with the major environmental effort that the State is putting forth as far as water quality is concerned. I have with me today, Bob Davenport, who is the Executive Director of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, and Sheldon Lipke on my left there who is the Chief Engineer. So, I thought what we might do if it is satisfactory to you is to have our director make a short presentation, and then we can chat a bit about it.

    Mr. LEWIS. That is fine. Gentlemen, your statement will be included in its entirety in the record, and if you will summarize that for us then we will pose questions. So, I would like to call on you, Mr. Davenport.

    Mr. DAVENPORT. All right, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members thanks for having us here today; we appreciate it very much. This is a shortened version; I'll just try to capsulize it.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good.

    Mr. DAVENPORT. Again, we want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today concerning the need for assistance in implementing the Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration Program. Now, New Jersey is distinguished as being the birthplace of industry in the United States. The industrial centers of Newark, Jersey City and Paterson developed and thrived in the early 19th to the mid-20th century generating the goods and capital that contributed to the building of our State and the Nation. We are now faced with the task of undoing the destruction to the local environment caused by these early endeavors.
 Page 360       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners serve 47 municipalities in northern New Jersey. The Commission operates the 6th largest wastewater treatment plant in the United States which treats wastewater generated by 1.3 million people. The Passaic River/Newark Bay Restoration Program includes assisting volunteer groups with shoreline clean-ups; trackdown and clean-up of toxics reaching into the sewer system, and efforts to reduce pollution from combined sewer overflows which is one of the most important areas.

    The sewer systems in seven member municipalities are combined with domestic and industrial wastewater using the same pipes as stormwater runoff. During times of rain, these sewers cannot handle the huge volume of combined sewage which then overflows in an untreated state to the Passaic River and North Bay. The overflows contain floating materials, toxic organic compounds, heavy metals, and disease-causing microorganisms.

    The EPA requires CSO owners to either reduce the quantity of overflows or provide treatment to meet water quality goals. These requirements are typically met through the total elimination of CSOs by constructing new wastewater sewers or by a system to capture and store the CSO overflow for later treatment. These alternatives would take at least 15 years to implement and have the construction cost of $1 billion to $2.4 billion. The cities of Newark, Paterson, and Jersey City are among the poorest in the Nation with a 1989 median income household income averaging less than $26,000. The ocean dumping of sewage sludge was halted in 1991 by constructing a massive sludge processing facility which were paid for entirely out of local funds. Debt service now consumes one of every five dollars in PVSC's budget.

    A search was initiated to find a plan which could still meet the goals of EPA's long-term control strategy but at a cost which the cities could afford. A review of the treatment plant's capacity was undertaken utilizing the latest state-of-the-art computer modeling techniques. The study recommended a series of in-plant improvements which would double the plant's ability successfully treat wet weather flows which will result in PVSC exceeding the EPA's long-term requirements for pollution reductions from CSOs. The improvements involve modifications to existing treatment units and can be in line in only 3 years after the project funds become available as opposed to the 15 for the other project. The cost for the stage of the improvements will cost $18.5 million of which we are requesting a Federal special needs grant of $14.8 million. The 20 percent match would be paid for with State and local funds.
 Page 361       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We believe that this innovative program meets the needs of the environmental protection by utilizing state-of-the-art techniques to maximize the effectiveness of existing infrastructure. In a era of scarce public resources, this program will serve as a national demonstration project for other communities facing vast infrastructure needs with only limited financial resources. So, basically, that kind of summarizes what we have been working on, and we also appreciate your tour of our plant.

    Mr. LEWIS. If my colleagues will bear with me, I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Very briefly, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to since I have been working former congressman, Bob Roe, and Mr. Davenport and other commissioners. I have toured the site. I know it is vitally important, and I know that as overall review of our Nation's needs that you have been just great since this is somewhat of a New Jersey day to give us as much attention as you can and to consider all the weight of experience on the other side of the table, on both sides of the table here today, I know, Mr. Chairman, we will do our level best to be of help wherever we can. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. You managed to find a way, there is no doubt about it. [Laughter.]

    Mr. Roe.

    Mr. ROE. I think what is really critical about this, Mr. Chairman, is that if we follow the route that has been laid out by EPA at this point, it is going to take us about 15 or 20 years and cost us $3 billion to do what they have suggested needs to be done, eliminating the combined sewer sludge because of the resources available. When we had to get out of the ocean in the State of New Jersey, that cost us hundreds of millions of dollars—not blaming anybody, I fall for that myself—and then, of course, what we had to do is go through enormous expenses as far as getting rid of our sludge was concerned and so forth and so on.
 Page 362       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, the EPA has a program going where we have to do certain water quality clean-ups over a period of time which you are intimately aware of, vis-a-vis, the San Diego Project. Where we are coming from, if we can make this investment which totals over a three-year period of time somewhere in the order of about $60 million or $70 million, of which we will pay our share both the Commission and the State of New Jersey, what we would run into at that point, we could complete this job, and we would be able to double the treatment of combined sewer overflows into the North Bay. It would save us billions of dollars and would save us about 15 years.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Congressman Roe, I appreciate that.

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. I am certainly going to turn next to my colleague who I know is going to want to say hello to this guy. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not pass up the opportunity to express very warm greetings to Former Congressman, Bob Roe. I served here with Bob and admired many days when I watched him bring his bills to the floor. He is one of the most distinguished chairman in this body; one of the most knowledgeable Members I have ever served with, and it is just a pleasure to have you back, Bob. Good to see you.

    Mr. ROE. Thank you.
 Page 363       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I have no questions, but welcome and thank you for coming.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. No questions further. Oh, the Governor.

    Ms. DELEON. Mr. Chairman, yes——

    Mr. LEWIS. Just identify yourself, if you would, for the record.

    Ms. DELEON. My name is Donna DeLeon.

    Mr. LEWIS. DeLeon?

    Ms. DELEON. Yes, DeLeon, like Ponce. [Laughter.]

    We just wanted to bring to your attention—I am here on behalf of Governor Whittman, she has written a letter in support of this outstanding project in the State. I hope you and the other committee members have seen it. It is an environmental priority for our State, and we do hope with all due respect you will give it your full attention as well as another project about which she has written to you. Those letters letters are with the Committee.
 Page 364       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We have received the letters and please communicate our best wishes to the Governor, and we appreciate your providing this testimony. You can revise and extend your remarks, if you wish. This is relatively a brief circumstance and that, of course, is very helpful to the process we are going through here.

    I want to thank you for being with us and indeed we'll have you in mind throughout the year as I thought about you as ISTEA as on the floor last year. [Laughter.]

    Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

THOMAS H. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, CITY OF TALLAHASSEE

    Mr. LEWIS. We were kind of backtracking in our schedule just a bit. Is Mr. Thomas Lewis here? Mr. Lewis. We appreciate your being patient with our patience. [Laughter.]
 Page 365       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. I enjoyed hearing that information.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Lewis is representing Florida State University. We would suggest for the record, no matter what they think, we may or may not be related, right? [Laughter.]

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. Absolutely. May or may not. And just quick there for a moment. I am representing the City of Tallahassee in our joint relationship on this project for Florida State University.

    Mr. LEWIS. Alright, that's fine.

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony and speak to the commitment that the City of Tallahassee has made to the comprehensive revitalization of its Frenchtown Community. The City's approach to this revitalization is designed to capture the time, the spirit, and the essence of this community when it was Tallahassee's center for the cultural, social, entertainment and economic fabric of the black family life in Tallahassee.

    Frenchtown was one of the first neighborhoods established in Tallahassee. Settled by the French farmers in 1841, they created a small business enclave of homes and businesses. After suffering many hardships, the French gave up on the area, which after the Civil War was claimed by freed slaves. Frenchtown grew as a neighborhood and soon became the economic and cultural center of Tallahassee's black community. It remained so for over 100 years. Then with the onset of integration, the closing of the historically black high school, and the urban flight that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's, the community began its gradual decline.
 Page 366       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The deterioration of the Frenchtown as a community can be traced to a breakdown in the basic process of community regeneration. People who raised their families in Frenchtown have aged and remain, their increase, their offspring face with the increase of urban decay, coupled with the phenomena of expanded choices brought on by integration, escalated the trend of decline in the community's social, cultural, economic, and home ownership base.

    But even in the midst——

    Mr. LEWIS. Now, Mr. Lewis, one of the things I'm going to have to do, Louis Stokes would really be unhappy with me if I didn't do this. He would say that we will take your entire testimony for the record but if you'd summarize it within the 5 minute time period——

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. That we normally use, it would be appreciated. I know that's difficult but, you know.

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. I understand, and this is a 5-minute summary. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Then proceed, don't let me interrupt.

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. Okay. The neighborhoods came together and formed the Frenchtown neighborhood association, the city has made substantial infrastructure improvements, housing development, and economic restructuring of the district.
 Page 367       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Frenchtown community is located directly across the street from Florida State University. Florida State University is a key partner and a major facet of the revitalization of this community. The University and City proposed to join their redevelopment efforts, and jointly seek funding for an Economic Development Initiative Grant, titled The Frenchtown Arts and Cultural Entertainment District. The project will link the development of the new performing arts center that's being developed on FSU campus with the Entertainment Arts and Cultural Center located right across the street in Frenchtown.

    The proposed Urban Entertainment and Cultural Center will encompass a hotel, retail development, is a $60 million development. We are requesting $3.5 million in Economic Development Initiative funding, and this grant will pay for the storm water, the infrastructure, property acquisition, and site improvement costs for the development of the comprehensive cultural center. This cultural center will also contain a museum of African American history, science and technology which will support the site as a community tourist place, but, more specifically, this project is key to providing the link to the past, the present, and the future of the Frenchtown community.

    We are excited about the opportunity to ask for assistance and then be able to maximize, to leverage it for 20 to 1 grants, so this will be a $60 million opportunity. Granting this request will enable us to return the Frenchtown community to that time when it was a center for minority business, home ownership, entertainment, and a thriving cultural life.

    Again, I thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman and request your support to help us rebuild this neighborhood.
 Page 368       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Lewis, thank you very much for that summary and it is very much appreciated, any additional remarks you might have for the record will be included in the record. And we look forward to working with you.

    Members of the Committee, Mr. Stokes, you haven't been around lately, so I just was.

    Mr. STOKES. I just want the record to reflect that Mr. Lewis finished his testimony within 5 minutes. [Laughter.]

    Mrs. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lewis represents my hometown of Tallahassee, even though I represent here in the Congress, Miami. I was born and reared very near the area that he's talking about.

    Mr. LEWIS. Really? I think that's the first time I heard that.

    Mrs. MEEK. That's true.

    Mr. STOKES. It's an interesting bit of history you gave us about the Frenchtown. It's the first I heard of that, and I found it fascinating.

    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS. And we hope to be able to catch that history in the cultural aspects of this entertainment complex. We want your assistance and help.

 Page 369       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

    Mrs. MEEK. Yes, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. No questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis. Appreciate your patience.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

NASA, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

WITNESSES

AUDREY MANLEY, PRESIDENT, SPELMAN COLLEGE

PAMELA GUNTHER-SMITH, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, SPELMAN COLLEGE

    Mr. LEWIS. And let's see here, Dr. Audrey Manley, President of Spelman College, representing Spelman College.
 Page 370       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Dr. MANLEY. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Congressman Lewis. Mr. Chairman, and to the other members of the Committee, I am Dr. Manley, the President of Spelman College. And I have with me today, also an alumna of Spelman College, Dr. Pamela Gunther-Smith, who is our Professor of Physiology and Chair of our Department of Biology.

    Before I proceed with my formal comments, I would like to recognize and acknowledge Congressman Stokes. We are old friends and we go back many years during my career as an officer in the Public Health Service for 21 years, during which I served, not only as the Acting Director of the Office of Minority Health, but as Deputy Surgeon General, and most recently, Acting Surgeon General. I also want to acknowledge Mrs. Meek who is the mother of a Spelman alumna.

    Mrs. MEEK. Absolutely.

    Mr. LEWIS. We're getting a lot of information on our committee today.

    Dr. MANLEY. Yes. I have witnessed, of course, firsthand much of the work that the Congress is providing leadership and assuring that all Americans have access to housing, and health care, education, employment, and other opportunities.

    I want to specifically recognize Congressman Stokes for his contributions on this committee. His service to the Nation has been unparalleled, and we all know that he will be sorely missed. And I do want to personally wish you and your family all the best.
 Page 371       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

    Dr. MANLEY. Congressman, we hope to have you down to Atlanta as you prepare to leave Congress this Fall.

    Now recommendations Spelman College would like you to consider during your deliberations, in 5 minutes. [Laughter.]

    Our recommendations affect three agencies under your subcommittee's jurisdiction. These agencies include the NASA, the NSF, and HUD. For reasons that will be discussed only briefly today, but the details are in our written testimony which has been submitted for the record, is to continue the funding for the educational programs sponsored by these agencies which are of critical importance to us.

    Some of you may already be aware of the Spelman College story. It is one of achievement and success. On average, 34 percent of our 1,900 women enrolled at Spelman consistently elect mathematics, science, physics, chemistry, and a dual degree program in engineering as their majors, unparalleled in the country. Moreover, 30 percent of our Spelman students annually graduate with degrees in these areas.

    Mr. LEWIS. And biology as well.

    Dr. MANLEY. Absolutely. [Laughter.]

 Page 372       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    AAMC, for example, has listed Spelman among the top 10 schools producing the most African American applicants who have successfully gained admission to medical schools. The NSF has ranked Spelman among the top 26 producers of African Americans to obtain doctorates and second among Historically Black Colleges and Universities. NSF, along with NASA, has designed Spelman College a Model Institution of Excellence in their MIE program in undergraduate science and mathematics education. There are only six institutions in the country so identified.

    But despite Spelman's success, much work remains to be done if the college is to continue to produce dynamic women in science who can assist in leading the country in the research and development arena. The College's science facility, which was built in 1927, is cramped and obviously out of date. Many of Spelman's students, while academically astute, come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Thus, programs sponsored by HUD, NSF, and NASA are needed now, as much as ever, if we are to continue to successfully move students through the pipeline into science, biomedical, health careers and professions.

    Specifically, we ask you to address three things in your deliberations in the fiscal year 1999 budget. That $7.8 million be provided under HUD's Economic Development Initiative account, the Community Development Block Grant, to assist the college in renovating and equipping its science facility. This is truly a public private effort. Funds have already been raised in the amount of $22.5 million to establish a 88,000-square-foot state-of-the-art science complex. In addition to benefiting Spelman's faculty and students, the center will allow the college to reach out more fully to the residents in the surrounding urban and assisted housing communities, particularly women moving from welfare to work, and to assist their children. Spelman College today finds itself in the middle of an empowerment zone, and it is a major institution to provide leadership in this community.
 Page 373       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Turning to NASA, the President requests $13.5 billion to be provided in fiscal year 1999. Of particular interest, is the $20 million reduction that has been proposed for academic programs. The reduction proposed for academic programs would threaten programs that benefit our college. Spelman has participated in NASA's Women in Science and Engineering Program, the WISE program, for the last 11 years. Therefore, in fiscal year 1999, we ask that these programs be funded at a level that keeps pace with inflation.

    And finally, NSF requests $3.8 billion in fiscal year 1999. It is a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 1998's budget. In the amount requested, it is $683 million, representing an 8 percent increase to be provided for education and human resources. We wish to support the administration's request for these funds.

    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral testimony, written testimony is provided, and I will be happy to answer any questions that any of you might have. And I think we have some brochures for the Chair and for the Committee.

    Mr. LEWIS. Could you give me your name one more time?

    Dr. GUNTHER-SMITH. Pamela Gunther-Smith.

    Mr. LEWIS. Gunther-Smith?

    Dr. GUNTHER-SMITH. It's hyphenated.

 Page 374       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Gunther-Smith. Let me see, first, I would like to say to you, Dr. Manley, that during the time I've been on this committee, Louis Stokes and I have formed somewhat of a partnership——

    Dr. MANLEY. Good, I'm glad to hear that. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. That would specifically recognize, at least from our perspective, that affirmative action is not exactly dead. It has not accomplished yet all that we would hope that it might accomplish, but in terms of Mr. Stokes' leadership in that whole subject area, you are a demonstration project. So I'm pleased to make your acquaintance. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take a moment to personally welcome before this committee one of the most distinguished women in America. Dr. Audrey Manley has had a very distinguished career in the Public Health Service, as she noted, spending so many years in the Public Health Service Corps, she was our Acting Surgeon General of the United States prior to becoming president of one of the premier colleges in this country. We were all very proud that she was selected to be President of Spelman College. This college has produced so many distinguished African American women, so we're very proud to have you here. As you said, you and I have had a very close working relationship over many, many years, and I remain quite in admiration of your accomplishments.

    Dr. MANLEY. Thank you very much. You are very kind and very generous.

 Page 375       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I'm just pleased to have Dr. Manley here, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing the needs of Spelman College before this committee, and I must say you clearly delineated them. Thank you.

    Dr. MANLEY. Thank you very much for hearing us.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Stokes' personal endorsement is good enough for me. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Before you both leave let me mention something else. Among other things this subcommittee is focused upon, what has happened over the years with colleges like Spelman and the fantastic contribution that they have made to a field that in some circles is not as popular today as it used to be, namely affirmative action, and attempting to make sure that there are opportunities for minority, particularly minority women, but a cross section of other, others of our citizenry. Among those groups that we've begun to pay attention to here of late involves a program known, given the title of HSI, Hispanic Support Institutions, and there's been almost no attention paid to that need in the country over the years. I must say that in this subcommittee, while we have difficulty getting our authorizers to do all we would like them to do, nonetheless within this subcommittee this voice is going to continue to be heard, and I expect to hear from you what in the future I'm sure we're going to.
 Page 376       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Dr. MANLEY. Thank you. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for being with us.

    Dr. MANLEY. Thank you, and again, just a comment on that. Congressman Stokes certainly has been a leading advocate for minority groups of all categories——

    Mr. LEWIS. Sure has.

    Dr. MANLEY [continuing]. Giving attention to other groups, other than African Americans.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Dr. MANLEY. So I'm glad to see your commitment to continue doing it.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
 Page 377       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

GEORGE McDONALD, PRESIDENT, THE DOE FUND, INC.

    Mr. LEWIS. Now let's see, George MacDonald of the Doe Foundation. Mr. MacDonald. You've been here long enough that you know the admonitions and all that.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I do.

    Mr. LEWIS. So please just proceed.

    Mr. MACDONALD. But I have no paper in front of me.

    Mr. LEWIS. I noticed, I noticed.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I'll summarize the past 14 years in about 2 minutes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I started out as a volunteer in Grand Central Terminal handing out food to homeless people at 10 o'clock in the evening in 1984. And about 400 people would line up on 43rd and Vanderbilt and we would give out the sandwiches and they would thank us for that. But I would hear over and over that what they really wanted was a room and a job to pay for it. So we set out to put something like that together. It took us until 1990. We started the Ready, Willing and Able program in New York City. We have graduated over 600 men and women to private sector jobs, unsubsidized apartments. Three years ago we brought the program here to the District and we graduated over 75 folks here into private sector jobs, unsubsidized apartments. We had our last graduation at the Georgetown University. I told the folks that they could say that they graduated at Georgetown. [Laughter.]
 Page 378       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I must tell you as an aside, I went to the airport the next morning, got out of the cab and there was a gentleman working for American Airlines who had graduated from our program opening the door.

    It's a program that works but it stresses personal responsibility. We pay $5.50 an hour to begin with and the folks go out and work. They sweep the streets, Georgetown, K Street, and so on. They pay us $50 and we can arrange $15 for food and save $30 per week. At the end of nine months, that $30 is $1,000, we match that with $1,000 so there's an incentive built into the program.

    Our folks have long histories of substance abuse, incarceration, and homelessness, but yet these turnouts would be not barriers to getting private sector employment if the goal of the program from the beginning is that they get private sector employment. Gwen and Cliff are examples of the folks who were formerly homeless here in the Capital. We're asking for $1 million to continue to expand our program. Reverend McPherson runs our program here.

    And that's about it, except on a personal note, if you don't mind my saying, I used to drive Congressman Frelinghuysen's father when he was a Congressman. And I grew up in Morris County, New Jersey.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. He didn't get paid either did he? [Laughter.]

    Mr. MACDONALD. No, no. [Laughter.]
 Page 379       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I got paid, I got paid, Congressman.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wanted to make sure the record showed that.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I got paid in ways that are very important in America. I got values from your father that brought me here to be able to do this work. So it's a pleasure to see you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and Mr. Stokes, I wish you weren't retiring.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you so much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, we very much appreciate that testimony, it is truly a testimony. And gentleman, if you know what our schedule overall is like but, any remarks you might like to make you are certainly welcome to address the Committee.

    Mr. CLIFTON ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, myself, I would hope——

    Mr. LEWIS. Would you identify yourself?

    Mr. CLIFTON ROBINSON. I'm sorry, Clifton Robinson. I am a trainee and resident of the Ready, Willing, and Able program here. I would hope that the people in this room could understand how vitally important a program like this is for a person in my situation. Now, that would be a person whose homeless, who has a chemical dependency problem, and a person who is under-skilled. Being a resident of this program I am able to address all three of those aspects in my life and it is making me a much better individual. And I just hope people here can understand how vitally important it is for people.
 Page 380       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for that.

    Mr. WINFRED ROBINSON. And also, my name is Winfred Robinson, and I am also a trainee of Ready, Willing and Able. And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to emphasize the vital importance of this program that took a person like me off the streets of Washington, D.C. and instilled within me some self-discipline, some self-worth, to increase my self-esteem, to give me the ability and the tools to go on with my life and the potential of this program can do the same for many other homeless people on the streets. We just need more support and more help in doing so. This is a very successful, and may I mention, one of the most effective programs in this region. And I am proud to be a part of it, and proud to be here and honored to testify with this program.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. MCPHERSON. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, those that are present, as a native of this city, I worked in the homeless arena for many years. I have seen the ebb and flow of the city in terms of the homeless population, working in the shelter system we house them at 7:00 p.m. and we put them out at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. There was no care at all. They defecated on themselves. There were no programs. When I was hired by the MacDonald's to run the program in the District, I initially felt that the program would not work. However, I am a believer. I am a believer in that we teach men how to be responsible. We teach them first to provide for themselves. We teach them how to take care of their families. We teach them how to understand the system. The system is yourself, the family, the community, the city, and then the Nation. We provide them with the positive things that they need, self-esteem, self-building, and it is done over an 18 month period of time. Most programs that I have directed are 30 days, 60 days, 90 day programs. We have a year and a half to work with these individuals and the program is the best program in the Nation based on what we do.
 Page 381       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Reverend, would you give us your name for the record?

    Mr. MCPHERSON. I am sorry.

    Mr. LEWIS. That is alright.

    Mr. MCPHERSON. Reverend Samuel Lewis McPherson, Sr.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, we got it. We got it. Let's see, Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to express my appreciation to each of these gentlemen. This has been some very powerful testimony and very effective, I think, on the members of this subcommittee. And Mr. MacDonald I would like to share with you, your mentioning Mr. Frelinghuysen's father, I had the honor some 26 years ago when I first came on this subcommittee of serving with his father on the same subcommittee. [Laughter.]

    So I do not know what that says about my age but——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES [continuing]. I concur with you that they have a very fine gentleman, and in his case, the apple does not fall very far from the tree. Thank you.

 Page 382       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. Here, here. I would agree with that. Just briefly, I think what you are doing is marvelous, it is important, it is making a difference. And the testimony that these two gentlemen have given is as powerful as any we have heard today. You are all to be congratulated.

    Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I just want to say I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one anyway. [Laughter.]

    Seeing these men really convinced me that this program is worthwhile.

    Mr. MACDONALD. We would like to come help those people under that bridge you spoke of.

    Mrs. MEEK. Yes, you gave validity to the distance of this program.

    Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you all very much for being with us. I think we ought to adjourn for the day, do you think? [Laughter.]
 Page 383       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

BARBARA THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF STATE HOUSING AGENCIES

    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Barbara Thompson, the Director of Policy and Government Affairs, speaking for the National Council of State Housing Agencies. Thank you for being with us.

    Ms. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me. Good afternoon to you and Mr. Stokes and other members of the subcommittee. I am Barbara Thompson. I am Director of Policy and Government Affairs for the National Council of State Housing Agencies. If it means anything, Mr. Frelinghuysen, I once worked for Governor Tom Cain here in Washington—[laughter]—Governor Bradenburn, and prior to that, and this takes us back many years, I am almost reluctant to admit it, I also worked for Andrew McGuire from New Jersey, from Bergen County at that time. So still have the New Jersey connections.

 Page 384       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen is taking over the meeting. [Laughter.]

    Ms. THOMPSON. I am here, as I said, mentioning—representing the National Council of State Housing Agencies. NCSHA represents the Nation's housing finance agencies, including your own, Mr. Chairman, the California Housing Finance Agency.

    The State HFAs have evolved considerably in their expertise and capacity in delivering affordable housing, particularly as you, this subcommittee, and the authorizing committees have continued devolve responsibility, we think very wisely, to State and local governments over the years.

    The agencies are now involved in every form of housing from homelessness, to ownership housing, to section 8 restructuring, to preservation, just every area of housing you can imagine. And I focus on many of those areas in my longer statement and will focus just on three areas, if I may today: the HOME program, section 8 contract renewals, project contract renewal and the very successful FHA HFA risk-sharing program.

    I also want to take a moment, before I conclude my remarks, to mention a couple of other programs and to ask your help in restoring their purchasing power. And those programs are the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the Housing Bond program, particularly the Mortgage Revenue Bond program, which the States and several local governments also administer. Although those programs are not under your jurisdiction, they are vital to housing. They are the greatest producers today of ownership housing, as well as rental housing for low-income people, and they leverage considerably the increasing limited resources that HUD has at its disposal.
 Page 385       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Let me begin, very briefly, with the HOME program. I don't have to tell you all what an outstanding success that program has been. Please refer to the testimony. I have given you some recent examples of activities of the HOME program in your districts that we think are pretty outstanding and innovative.

    What makes the housing program, the HOME program, and what is the HOME program's genius, in our view, is the fact that it relies on States and local government and not Washington to decide how to respond best to pressing housing needs. You clearly recognized that when you found a way, quite extraordinarily we thought, last year to actually increase the HOME program when the administration wanted to cut it. We commend you for that. We are very grateful for that increase to $1.5 billion. We hope you can find a way to exercise your magic again this year and at least be able to meet the Administration's request of $50 million increase, and we know that will not be easy but we urge you to do the very best you can for the HOME program as you have in the past.

    Section 8 is the next area of focus, contract renewals particularly on the project-based side. I sat before this subcommittee, Chairman Lewis, just a year ago, and frankly, we were a little discouraged. I think we both were about the demonstration that you had enacted the prior year, as well as the chances for a permanent program to be authorized by the Congress last year. The demonstration at that time was getting off to an awfully slow start at HUD, despite the fact that 30 States had stepped up to the plate to be part of it, they were not hearing much from HUD, the regulations were being written very slowly.

    Since then, I am very pleased to say that of those 30 States, 24 States have approved plans, many have signed contracts. Every State represented at this table is involved in the program. Just today we learned that California has submitted their plan to HUD.
 Page 386       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now we are just beginning to bring down properties and actually do the restructuring. Ohio will be the test case because Ohio has more properties than any other States. But we are encouraged at the progress.

    We also want to commend you for the permanent program. Ultimately you had to do it. I know you hoped not to have to do it, but we commend you for working with the authorizing committee and for modeling that program on the demo, which we think has great promise, and particularly for giving States the priority role as restructuring agents. HUD has been great about involving us in writing the regulations for that program and we even, at our suggestion, were able to get HUD to accept a very expert HFA person, an expert in multi-family finance who has been hired temporarily by HUD to go inside the Department and work on writing those regulations. So we are delighted with that and we hope to be able to continue to report on our progress under that program.

    Thirdly, and lastly, in terms of this committee's programs, the FHA HFA risk-sharing program. And here I must make a plea to the subcommittee that I have made in the past. We now have a program that is several years old, authorized in 1992. It is a program that works. It allows the States to ensure FHA multi-family properties and share in the risk and in return, cut through the HUD bureaucracy and be able to use their own flexible underwriting standards. Your State, Mr. Lewis, has done more under this program than any other. Florida is another, and there are many more, 28 in total. An amazing amount of activity in Florida.

    The problem is, and it made sense at the when it was authorized, you allocated a number of units each year. We have now 50,000 units authorized. All those units have been used. Last year you tried to give us another 15,000, you moved it to the extended bill which, of course, never passed. We are asking you to get out of the business of piecemealing this program. No other insurance program works that way. This program is a success. It costs no Federal credit subsidies, no cost to this subcommittee. And you are going to see a GAO report, I am proud to say on Friday this week, I will get it right in the Subcommittee's hands and all the hands of the Subcommittee members which basically says this program works, continue it and here are various reasons why it should be made permanent. We hope you will take the GAO's advice on that.
 Page 387       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Lastly, I just want to touch on in 30 seconds the Housing Credit program and Housing Bond program. Both of those programs are suffering from the same thing. The housing credits were authorized in 1986. A certain amount was authorized for each State, a $1.25 per resident. The same thing with housing bonds, which fall under private activity bonds, $50 per capita for each State. That has not been adjusted for 10, actually 12 years now. Inflation alone has eroded those programs by 50 percent. Most tax programs are indexed for inflation. These are not. Bills are pending to do just that, to make up for the difference, not to increase them but to simply restore their purchasing power and on top of that index them so we do not find ourselves in this position again. I urge you to get on those, many of you have.

    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, in particularly, for signing on several other Subcommittee members, 228 House members are on the Bond bill, 186 are on the Housing Credit bill, but in order to compete for very scarce revenue within the tax committees this year, we must show that we have overwhelming support. So I urge you, not only in your own capacity, but in your capacity as recognized housing leaders within the Congress to speak out, talk to Chairman Archer, particularly. To talk with other members of the Ways and Means Committee and make sure that if there is a tax bill this year, which I know we have no great certainty that the tax bill will carry these very, very important increases.

    I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson. I appreciate your testimony.

 Page 388       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. THOMPSON. You bet.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No comment, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.

    Ms. THOMPSON. If I could just leave with the Subcommittee, books for you that talk about the real life stories of people who have been helped by the programs I mentioned.

    Mr. LEWIS. We will be glad to include in the file.

    Ms. THOMPSON. And I would like to just conclude by saying that Valerie is super and you are awfully lucky to have her. [Laughter.]

    Mrs. MEEK. We know that.

 Page 389       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for that.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

BERNARD KAHN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEBREW ACADEMY FOR SPECIAL CHILDREN

    Mr. LEWIS. Next on our list of witnesses, Bernard Kahn, representing the Hebrew Academy for Special Children. Mr. Kahn?

    Mr. KAHN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good afternoon.

    Mr. KAHN. Good afternoon ranking member Stokes, and other members of the Committee and Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to sit before you to testify on behalf of the Hebrew Academy for Special Children, otherwise usually known as HASC. I am the Executive Director. My name is Bernie Kahn. I will take just a moment to describe the background of HASC and the help that we are looking for.
 Page 390       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Hebrew Academy for Special Children was founded in 1963 for profoundly handicapped children from the local school districts in order to provide any special education programming. Today 34 years later, we are servicing over 1,100 special children, physically and mentally handicapped children and adults on a daily basis. Children from 14 States around the Union, including New York, California, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Colorado, Georgia, and so on.

    These children have all come to HASC not because we advertised for them. They came on their own basis. Their parents heard about the facility on their own, they came to knock on the doors. We currently have over 100 children on the waiting list trying to get in.

    The facilities consist of pre-school programming, from the time of birth there is early intervention, pre-school programming from 3 to 5, school age special ed programming, as well as sheltered workshops for adults. They have programming, day-hab programming, res-hab programming, supportive work programming, Medicaid waiver programming, as well as group homes, residential group homes and summer programming, day and residential as well.

    The goal of the Hebrew Academy for Special Children is to maximize the potential of each of these special children to try to mainstream them into the community, and to provide them with the opportunity to become taxpayers, instead of tax recipients. In fact, two of your colleagues, Congressman Rangel and Congressman Gilman, have visited firsthand our facilities and seen what it is all about. They both came away very moved by their visit.

    For the past three decades HASC acquired the knowledge and expertise to assist other schools and agencies interested in developing educational facilities for special children and adults, however, were greatly inhibited by the lack of physical space and the lack of program dollars. And in response to the needs of America's handicapped children, HASC is seeking to establish a partnership with the Federal government to support the purchase and renovation of the facility so that HASC can expand its mission by reaching more developmentally disabled children and adults.
 Page 391       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Specifically, HASC will expand one of its nine sites, and since its opening in 1992 in Rockland County, the great demand for services has surpassed its physical capacity and there are still more than 100 still waiting.

    Therefore, to relieve the budget strain imposed upon the programs, to enable expansion, to ensure that proper management of the state-of-the-art programs described in my testimony, and to enable our professionals to help other organizations to develop similar programs, HASC is seeking assistance in acquiring and renovating a facility which has been identified.

    HASC's early intervention programs save local, State, and Federal government in special education costs every year. And with greater physical capacity to help mainstream even more children, more adults to become productive, self-sufficient taxpayers.

    Mr. Chairman, HASC is a sound investment for the Federal Government. The total funding needed to expand HASC's facilities and programs is slightly more than $5 million. Mr. Chairman, the total Federal request is $2.5 million. In your fiscal year 1998 bill, HASC received $100,000 from the Economic Development Initiative program and we are extremely grateful for this initial funding. And our hope is that your subcommittee will provide additional $2.4 million in the fiscal year 1999 bill so that we can complete the project.

    HASC will meet all additional budget needs by actively raising significant private dollars from State and government sources as well.

 Page 392       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Chairman Lewis, thank you Mr. Stokes and other members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with the testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Kahn. We do appreciate your being with us. Your entire testimony will be included in the record. I appreciate your summarizing for us. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much, Mr. Kann.

    Mr. KAHN. You are very welcome.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a project we discussed at last year's budget process. It is a very meritorious project and it is making a positive difference in the lives of those children. And we will have thorough discussions regarding the project. We will do the best we can to help.

    Mr. KAHN. Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. LEWIS. Congressman Walsh has only discussed this with me two dozen times. [Laughter.]

    Mrs. Meek.

 Page 393       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Kahn.

    Mr. KAHN. Thank you, Mrs. Meek.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. KAHN. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

DON OUCHLEY, BROWNSVILLE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD

    Mr. LEWIS. I'd ask our colleague to come forward with his guests. Congressman Ortiz.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 394       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We will let you do the honors.

    Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce to you a good friend, a gentleman, from Brownsville, Texas, as he comes to us today to testify on behalf of Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project. Mr. Ouchley has an outstanding 30 years record in the public utility field. Before being appointed General Manager of the Brownsville Public Utility Board, he was the Director of the public utilities of Lafayette, Louisiana. And before that, he was with the public utility district in Everett, Washington. I appreciate his presence today as he explains the importance of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project as the future development of the Brownsville area the Rio Grande Valley.

    My district is a border district. We have high unemployment because of El Nino after several years. It is either a flood or a drought. In this case, these last few years, we have had less problems, aside from the northern most point in my district, Corpus Christi, where we had to build a pipeline. We had to suspend the monies that they we were paying monthly or yearly for the construction of a dam that was built years back, so that we could pipe water from Lake Pizelma into the Corpus Christi area because we wouldn't have any water supply. In our district, if you do not have water, you do not have dogs. And this is very, very important.

    But I bring with me today a gentleman—he is very well qualified—and he can give you information as to what we are working on. I support it. It is needed and I hope that the committee can look at this issue that we are faced with and help us with this problem.
 Page 395       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Ouchley, we are pleased to receive your testimony and it will all be included in the record. If you would summarize it as you will see fit.

    Mr. OUCHLEY. I will summarize and I have been listening and it will be less than four minutes. [Laughter.]

    I will be very brief.

    My name is Don Ouchley. I am the General Manager of the Public Utilities Board in Brownsville, Texas. We are a city of 130,000 people; the largest city in the south Texas area border between Mexico and the United States.

    I would like to thank you for this opportunity this afternoon for listening. My testimony concerns a priority environmental problem faced by Brownsville, Texas area. And that is, the lack of a long term water supply. The reason that we are here today to ask that you designate $3 million from the Border Environmental Interest Structure Fund, the BEIF, for the use of the Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project. We need this money to initiate the implementation of this project.

    The Brownsville Weir and Reservoir project is the most important component of an integrated water resource plan for the Lower Rio Grande Valley. It provides a unique opportunity to capture water that has passed all other uses—water that cannot be captured any other way because we are the last point on the river. And without this project, this water flows to the Gulf of Mexico unused, even in times of severe drought. It is, in short, a major conservation project.
 Page 396       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The structure creating the impoundment would release adequate water for downstream users and also for environmental purposes. It does not hinder environmental needs for water nor downstream users. The project uses the existing river channel for storage and will be accessible to many users both in the United States and Mexico, rather than constructing an off-channel reservoir which is remote to existing water supply facilities. And also, it would only be accessible to a limited number of users and it would provide no benefit to Mexico and it would not meet the in-stream needs of the river. So storing the water within the existing river channel is the most effective way to impound the water.

    This project encourages water conservation because under current water management conditions, a significant portion of that saved by water conservation practices is not conserved in storage. But instead, the water flows to the Gulf of Mexico.

    Absent the project, the IBWC would have to continue to release water from Falcon Reservoir seven days in advance of the anticipated diversion. If this released water is not diverted due to reduced demand, or we get unanticipated in-flows, all of this water flows to the Gulf of Mexico unused. This project is the ultimate conservation project for our region and can conserve much more water than any other alternative that we have been able to come up with. The project conserves water for all users of the river. Every time we save an acre foot of water in Brownsville it puts an acre foot of water behind Falcon Dam Reservoir for anyone to use. It benefits all users, municipal, industrial, and agriculture.

    The project has the strong support of the State of Texas. The Texas Water Development Board has endorsed the project. It is one of their top priorities. There is also written support from Mexico, the State of Tamaulipas is supportive of the project, and we have the support of local government, citizens, and even local environmental organizations.
 Page 397       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We need your assistance because existing EPA and Border Environmental Coordinating Committee rules restrict the use of these funds to wastewater and drinking water facilities, and they do not cover water supply projects. The need to obtain a stable long term water supply for the entire Brownsville area is overwhelmingly the top border environmental priority for our area, as I have mentioned before. If the BEIF is to help improve the quality of our public health and environment, some funding needs to be spent on this Weir project.

    Our difficulty occurs because the BECC funding emphasizes funding for wastewater and water treatment plants for smaller communities. Yet Brownsville has spent over $40 million in the last 5 years to upgrade these facilities to meet State and Federal standards. And we have done this without any help from outside. The result of that has been that we have had to increase our rates very significantly and we have very high water and wastewater rates as a result of that. We, and our Congressional delegation, especially Congressman Ortiz, have assumed that our support of NAFTA that the Border Environmental funding would be able to reduce this financial impact on lower income communities, such as we are. In meeting environmental and public health needs, the city has paid, as I said, more than $40 million for major wastewater and drinking water improvements. And to put it in a nutshell, we have no more funds available for our water supply project needs. We strongly believe that we should be able to obtain the $3 million we need to continue this project out of the over $400 million of the BECC border funds that have already been appropriated for border environmental projects. And all of this for our top priority in the Valley. And we would appreciate your consideration.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your testimony. We are very appreciative of it. Congressman Ortiz is a very articulate representative who, among other things, has a great influence with Mr. Stokes of our committee. [Laughter.]
 Page 398       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Stokes, I want you to know that they have been lining up today. You have to count these shekels with great care. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. As you say, Mr. Ortiz is a very ardent advocate and as you say, I have all this influence. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Seriously, we very much appreciate your coming today and your entire testimony will be in the record. In the meantime, we appreciate your coming in and we appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. OUCHLEY. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Are there questions of the members?

    Mr. STOKES. No, thank you.

    Ms. MEEK. No, thank you.

    Mr. OUCHLEY. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
 Page 399       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

PHILIP FURMANSKI, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

    Mr. LEWIS. Let us see. Our next witness is Dr. Philip Furmanski, New York University. Mr. Furmanski. Nice to see you.

    Mr. FURMANSKI. Nice to see you.

    Mr. LEWIS. You have been observing with great patience.

    Mr. FURMANSKI. I have indeed.

    Mr. LEWIS. You understand the process?

    Mr. FURMANSKI. I do, and I will not take too much of your time.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. FURMANSKI. My name is Philip Furmanski and I am speaking on behalf of New York University. I am the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science and Chairman of the Biology Department. I do appreciate this opportunity to discuss a project which addresses the interests of several agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.
 Page 400       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In it's 1997 report on building a foundation for sound environmental decisions, the NRC advised the EPA to undertake a comprehensive approach to research and development activities that includes close cooperation with universities and research. Our project addresses that goal by enlisting fundamental university based research to advance biomedical and behavioral knowledge about the brain and to translate research advances into practical applications and new technologies.

    We aim to do this by establishing a center on our campus, a center for cognition, learning, motion, and memory. This center's research will push the frontiers of what we know about how the brain develops, how it functions, malfunctions, matures, and ages. As important, the center will also help train the next generation of interdisciplinary brain scientists who will carry on this research.

    NYU is seeking support to expand research programs, attract investigators, and provide the technical resources necessary to create a premier scientific enterprise. As you know, traditional funding sources cannot underwrite the establishment of a cross disciplinary area of scientific study, particularly one that includes both research and teaching and reaches across the fields, such as computer science, cognitive science, biomedicine, psychology, and education.

    Our project will substantially expand what we know about the development of the brain and the nervous system, including the role of environmental and biological growth factors that control development. Our research will, by it's nature, elucidate the fundamental rule structures that mediate the affects of human exposure to environmental risks and undermine neural health and development. These findings are especially important for brain development in infants and children, which is a priority area of concern for EPA.
 Page 401       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Research conducted at the center will explore short and long term memory and the loss of memory through aging, disease, and exposure to environmental agents. Using different perspectives, researchers will investigate brain functions ranging from elementary processes to higher order processes, perception, cognition, language, and thinking. Pioneering studies in neurobiology of fear are already generating important information about brain systems that malfunction, anxiety, phobias, panic attacks, and post traumatic stress disorders. Much of this is going on at NYU.

    Our research will explore the neuropathways of emotion and generate clues for treatment of emotional disorders, including the possibility of altering or inhibiting unconscious neural circuitry. These and other research studies will have a wide range of applications for physicians, for teachers, and policymakers, and important spinoffs for different sectors of society. For example, our research will investigate how children learn and how educators can accommodate different cognitive styles and harness technology to stimulate interest and to increase retention.

    Similarly, research on cognition and learning will have important implications for job training for adults and will help address the challenge of training workers in new technologies, including veterans who are moving into a civilian workforce.

    Finally, research on the way that the brain sees and processes information can have a direct application to it's machine analog in terms of computer vision and computer applications and data processing.

 Page 402       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    New York University is well positioned to create and operate this major, national, cross disciplinary research and training center. The largest private university in the United States, with well over 50,000 students who represent every State in the union and many foreign countries, NYU has outstanding researchers and well established strengths in neurobiology, cognitive science, neuromagnitism, behavioral neuroscience, educational psychology, mathematical modeling, and computer simulation. Our faculty are already widely recognized for their research on learning and memory, are international leaders in studies on fusion, which is one of the key elements and inputs to learning, and are pioneers in biological studies of emotion. With these strengths, NYU will create a distinctive center that will produce a new understanding of the brain and new ways of using that knowledge to meet national goals.

    Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I thank you for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Furmanski. I am not sure what you are——

    Mr. FURMANSKI. We are working on it.

    Mr. LEWIS. I beg your pardon? [Laughter.]

    Mr. FURMANSKI. We are working on it. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

 Page 403       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you very much for your testimony.

    Mr. FURMANSKI. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Meek.

    Ms. MEEK. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. The gentleman from New York.

    Mr. WALSH. Shorter memory is critically important. [Laughter.]

    Mr. FURMANSKI. We are working on that as well.

    Mr. LEWIS. We really appreciate your being here.

    Mr. FURMANSKI. Thank you very much for your attention.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
 Page 404       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

WITNESS

JOSEPH BUTTIGLEG, CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA

    Mr. LEWIS. We are going to move to item 41 and I will call upon Mr. Joseph—I hope I can pronounce this correctly—Buttigleg? Is that correct? With Catholic Charities. I am not sure that I pronounced that correctly, so help me.

    Mr. BUTTIGLEG. It is Smith—it is Buttigleg. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Buttigleg.

    Mr. BUTTIGLEG. Buttigleg.

    Mr. LEWIS. All right. Joe, welcome.

    Mr. BUTTIGLEG. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Members. I am the Associate Executive Director of Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Albany for Parish Social Ministry. I am also representing Catholic Charities USA. Of the 4.8 million people who came to Catholic Charities' agencies in 1996, 8 million of them came to us for emergency food, emergency shelter, and other crisis services.

    I have served a member of the New York State Emergency Food and Shelter State Set-Aside Board since 1990. The task of the State Set-Aside Board is to put a portion of the supplement to counties that may have not received a national appropriation, who are in an area where there is a high need.
 Page 405       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Attached to our testimony, we have submitted some of the letters that we have received from the county's State Set-Aside or county's emergency feeding programs boards, detailing the needs in their communities and you can read those. And, in fact, we have more than we have in terms of the submitted testimony.

    The dollars that FEMA provides for emergency food and shelter programs are really the life blood of those programs. It supplements local efforts to do fund raising, to provide emergency food, emergency shelter, to families that have no place else to turn.

    The experience of sitting on a State set-aside board is really like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The amount of money that is available in no way matches the needs that are presented by the local communities. Over the last eight years the State set-aside committee has noticed a fundamental restructuring of the people who need and come to us for services and the way that our programs are able to respond and provide the assistance that is needed.

    At one time the majority of the people who came to us were very obviously poor. In most instances they were on public assistance and they could not get their grant to stretch to the end of the month in exchange for emergency food and shelter. Today, we have a new class of people coming to us. They are the invisible poor and what we call the poorer poor. The invisible poor are those persons who had a good job with benefits with pay and they have lost them. And they now have had to settle for a lower paying job with few benefits. They find it very difficult to make ends meet to feed their kids, to clothe their kids, to house their kids.

 Page 406       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    At a recent meeting that we had in Albany where we had 1,000 Catholics coming to us at a meeting, we asked them, how many people knew someone who in the last year lost a job and had to settle for one with a lower wage and lower benefits. Sixty percent of the people who were in that room raised their hands.

    The poorer poor are the individuals who have gone through welfare reform. Recent studies in New York State have shown that of the people who have left the rolls, only between 25 and 35 percent of those people wind up in the next quarter in a payroll report. The question is, what happened to the other 65 or 75 percent of those people? From our experience with investment with the food pantries and emergency shelters that we have throughout New York State, the answer seems to be they are on their doorsteps.

    We have reports from Catholic Charities from around the country that for the first time in the history of Catholic Charities, food pantries are bare. Catholic Charities is hearing reports that former welfare recipients are worse off now that they are working than they were when they were receiving assistance and are coming to our emergency feeding sites and shelters.

    How are emergency food programs able to meet the needs of more people? By giving far less to more people than ever before. I can do that in the Albany Diocese we have some of the most generous people in the country. Every year they out give the national average in special drives that we have for the poor and the needy. And even their increased generosity is not able to keep up with the need that is being presented. One of our agencies in Schenectady County—we cover 14 counties in the Albany Diocese—reported that the request for food and assistance and emergency aid went up 400 percent in the last year.
 Page 407       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I guess the question is, is there an increased need? Absolutely. Have private charities tried to meet those needs? Definitely. Is there a need for an increased appropriation? Absolutely.

    Thank you for your time and attention. This story sounds dramatic, but the situation right now is dramatic.

    Mr. LEWIS. I must say that your mentioning of everything in your testimony, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the way you gave it, causes me to want to mention to those who are present, remind members, that there was a time when this member was about ready to promote legislation that would close down FEMA, for it was so non-responsive and this is some years ago. But nonetheless if all of our responsibilities were as responsive as that agency is now, a lot of our work would be much easier. I appreciate your recognition of it. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you very much for your testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Meek.

    Ms. MEEK. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Gentleman from New York.

 Page 408       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to reiterate some of the things Mr. Buttigleg said. You know, way back early on in my career, as a case worker, when people used to come for follow up assistance to the county—it would take awhile to process their paperwork. And so we would refer them to Catholic Charities or other charitable organizations within the community. And I thought the money came from that. Well, it did not. It came from, in many cases, the organization that got people through that crisis until they could sign up for public assistance.

    Today it would get them through until they could sign up for, in my county, the work plus program, which you sign up for public assistance and get a job at the same time. So it, as Mr. Jamie Lee Witt said, this is one of the most effective programs that we have for emergency situations. Because the money is there, the food is there, the system is in place to take care of these folks in the short term until either they get a job or they are on public assistance or things get turned around in their lives.

    And this program just 5 years ago was funded at about $135 million a year; it is down to about $100 million and the cost of inflation is eating up that amount also. So this challenge for the people in Catholic Charities and other charitable organizations' challenge is to make sure that people who really need it are helped. Our challenge is to make sure that, to the best of our ability, they have the resources to do that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Buttigleg, your entire testimony will be put in the record. We very much appreciate your being here.

    Mr. BUTTIGLEG. Thank you.
 Page 409       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

SHERWOOD DUBOSE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, METRO MIAMI ACTION PLAN

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Yes sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. We have Members and we have very aggressive Members, so I need you to sign off on this matter. The gentle lady from Florida is asking for a very special request and I want to have your approval.

    Mr. STOKES. Another one? [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. She would ask that we have Mr. Sherwood Dubose come up. He is the President and CEO of the Metro Miami Action Plan and I suppose we are FE.

 Page 410       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. I think that for the benefit of all us we can concede to that request. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Dubose, come right in.

    Ms. MEEK. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. You can just proceed with your testimony and we will include whatever you like in the record and from there go forward.

    Mr. DUBOSE. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. It is a pleasure for me to be here today and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the group regarding Metro Miami Action Plan project in Overtown, Miami.

    Let me begin by thanking you for the support last year for the project in Overtown, Miami. The Metro Miami Action Plan believes that the initial funding is an excellent regaining to demonstrate the type of fellow support that is needed to begin to revitalize a long neglected and overdue community that has suffered for years from urban blight, urban renewal.

    Overtown is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Miami, dating back to 1890 when it was designated as a segregated living area within the City of Miami limits for blacks working on Henry Flager's railroad.

    The residential population of Overtown peaked in the early 1960's to approximately 30,000 people. The construction of I–95, State Road 836/I–395 bisected the area, and as a result, population declined and spurred fallen property values, caused and stimulated loss of jobs, incomes, businesses were destroyed, homes were destroyed.
 Page 411       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Today major problems exist in the community—a high crime rate, low income residences exist there. There is an extensive structural environmental blight, social services are inadequate in the area, and there are critical needs to create jobs and to rebound lives in this community, both economically and socially.

    Clearly the Overtown community has enjoyed some benefits of African American culture at earlier stages. But it has fallen on hard times. With the event of I–95, again State Road 396, we left the entire community that we are having to deal with in Dade County. On one hand, to fit in, the county recognized some needs to begin to develop our infrastructure needs, to begin to replace water and sewage. However, we have left off the missing element. That is, resources that will generate and serve as economic generators for rebounding the established community.

    In 1997, a national survey indicated that per capita, the City of Miami is one of the poorest cities in America. That has a negative impact on the entire community that creates some of the problems that you have had to date. It eroded the tax base, its railway business, that have now left the community.

    Today we need your support. We need you to continue to support our efforts in Overtown by the value of $2 million. That $2 million is not just $2 million. That is multiplied by a multiplier of 7, where we bring in the local community, our businesses, banking institutions, local government, that we form joint ventures, partnerships that will enable us to multiply that money, leverage that money, so that we can begin to draw businesses, begin to redevelop that area, and hopefully within the next 10 years, have the community that is once again vibrant. A vibrant community again that is really stable. We will have low crime, high employment as opposed to high unemployment. These are the kind of things that we are looking for in the future.
 Page 412       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Overtown is poised to be a model for this country. It could be a model in the things we are on the cutting edge, and what we are doing there that could be replicated in other areas around the country, if we only had that continued support. The money that we have already received we have begun to acquire land, assemble sites, we have already begun to identify doable projects that are tangible that we could look to now and say that this is what we will have at the end of the day that would be there as a benchmark to demonstrate that there is continued need for revitalization.

    I have included quite a bit in my testimony, but I have to summarize by saying that there have been over nine studies done in the area of Overtown. Nine studies, so we do not need another study. What we need now is the commitment to follow through to make a reality. And I thank you on behalf of the 2.1 million of Dade citizens of Dade County for your consideration and I would like to have some questions, if there are any.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Dubose, for your testimony. Let me call on the gentle lady from Miami and see if she has any questions.

    Ms. MEEK. I would just like to say that I want to thank you, Mr. Dubose, for coming up. He represents an initiative in Miami that is working. That is, they can show the model they are using is creating jobs and providing the economic turnaround. And if it were not for the start that this subcommittee gave them, they would not have been able to get ahold of this problem. Everyone has talked about Overtown. Every politician has been there and said something would be done about the town. But if it were not for this subcommittee, they would have never received any funds on the national level to help them in turnaround. For that, I want to thank the Chairman and Mr. Stokes and the rest of the members of the committee who have seeded to help the Metro Miami Action Plan do this. The county established that for the mere purpose of doing economic development. We want to thank the committee.
 Page 413       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Meek. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes, you have the last word.

    Mr. STOKES. I would just like to say to Mr. Dubose that last year when this project was initiated through this subcommittee that Ms. Meek was very diligent with me on your behalf. She was a very strong advocate. Mr. Lewis nor I will ever forget that. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Like I said, he had the last word. [Laughter.]

    Thank you, Mr. Dubose. We appreciate very much your being with us.

    Mr. DUBOSE. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

 Page 414       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
WITNESS

MARK PINSKY, CHAIRMAN, THE COALITION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Christine Gaffney, the Director, Coalition for Community Development Financial Institutions.

    Ms. GAFFNEY. Mr. Chairman, our testimony will be given by Mark Pinsky; he is Chairman of the CDFI Coalition.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your patience. I know you have been here for awhile and you have observed this process of moving back and forth. But, in the mean time, I am glad to have you. Would you identify yourself for the record.

    Mr. PINSKY. My name is Mark Pinsky. I am Chairman of the Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Alright.

    Mr. PINSKY. I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak with you today. We have had a good chance to sit and listen and hear about a lot of good things happening and we appreciate it.

    If I may, the CDFI Coalition represents the CDFI industries in this country with more than 350 CDFI's managing approximately $2 billion in assets.
 Page 415       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I also want to identify that in my day job I am the Executive Director of a group called the National Community Capital Organization, which was a founding member of the coalition and I am going to make some reference to some of our work in a minute.

    I want to tell you today that the CDFI Fund, although it is just a few years old, is actually having an enormous positive impact on the CDFI industry, including the CDFI industry on small businesses, in housing development, in many of the Nation's poorest communities. The President has requested $125 million for the upcoming fiscal year and the Coalition and the industry urges Congress to appropriate the full amount. We know that this subcommittee and the Committee has been very supportive of the CDFI Fund in the past and we appreciate it.

    What I would like to do is tell you very briefly, if I may, a few key points that I think have concerned the Subcommittee in the past and what I think are critical to the future of the CDFI industry.

    CDFI is a private sector financial institution that is, as you will see, in the leveraging business. The CDFI Fund was created to strengthen and expand that network of CDFI's. From our view, a sort of customer view of the CDFI Fund, we think the CDFI Fund goes well and respond to it's market. It has in the past offered and is developing products that are customer responsive and it is increasingly smart about how it delivers it's products to it's consumers.

    There really are four points that I wanted to make about this. The first is leverage. CDFI's are in the business of leverage. That's what we do. We do it to our partnerships with private, for profit, financial institutions, banks, insurance companies, and others. And we do it to our relationships in the communities where we work. It is a conservative statement to say that a dollar of equity from the CDFI Fund invested in the CDFI will yield $100 or more in investment—in private sector investment, in small businesses, in housing development in many of the Nation's poorest communities. It is an enormous leverage factor and I would be glad to come back and walk through that, if that is of interest.
 Page 416       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The second thing is an issue that the CDFI industry is very concerned about, which is demonstrating that it is having an impact. We have many anecdotal stories. I did not bring them with me today. I know you have heard some of them, you have probably seen some of them, but I think it is very important that we be able to understand what this money is actually doing from a business perspective.

    And what I would like to do is wear my National Community Capital hat, if I will, for a second. We as an association have tracked the performance and the impact of what our member CDFI's have been doing longer than just about anyone else and I think that the CDFI Fund has a chance to really build on the knowledge base that we have and demonstrate more. But, if I may, the CDFI default to National Community Capital had loaned to ER in 1996 about—loaned and invested a little over $.5 billion, about $514 million, with a default rate again working in many of the Nation's poorest communities of about 1 percent, historically. They have leveraged every dollar they have put in has leveraged about $7 in primarily private sector investment into those communities for about $3.5 billion. That financing has created more than 23,000 jobs and more than 64,000 housing units again across the country.

    The third point I wanted to make is demand. As you know, the CDFI program and the CDFI Fund has had requested in its first 2 rounds of almost about $486 million, despite the fact they had just about $75 million available. They had 427 applicants in those first 2 rounds and so far have been able to fund only 74 of them. And so, I think the demand is clearly the industry sees the value of what the CDFI funds doing in seeking to pay that fund. I would note that it is a very competitive process and it focuses very much on the performance of these private sector institutions, as it should.
 Page 417       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The last main point I wanted to make is that the CDFI Fund in its short history has been very responsive where it has identified, if you will, gaps in its products and services. It recently announced a technical assistance round to help those small emerging institutions that are not yet ready to be competitive in getting funding from the main program, to get some technical assistance in the training they need to build their capacity. It created an intermediary component to work with organizations like mine to provide financing to a wide range of CDFI's that again, may not be able to gain access directly through the CDFI funds.

    They are looking at creating a training—a large scale training program—one of the major needs in the CDFI industry is human capital. There is a labor crisis in our field. There are not enough skilled talented people. We are looking to the banking industry and recruiting people from the banking industry these days to come in and fill some of those positions. And this training program would be helpful. In addition, we have proposed and I think the Fund is looking very seriously at what we call an easy access window that would fill a gap in their programs that would make it easy for small emerging institutions to get reasonable amounts of capital through the fund, even though they may not be able to be competitive with some of the larger institutions in the main program of the fund.

    In conclusion, I just want to say that the CDFI industry believes strongly that as long as the CDFI Fund remains focused on CDFI performance and applies rigorous business practice standards to its own work as we think it is doing now, it will be a catalyst for innovation and private sector investment in low income communities across that Nation. Again, we hope you will recommend full funding for the upcoming fiscal year.

 Page 418       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Pinsky. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you very much for your testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen, no questions? Both Mr. Pinsky and Ms. Gaffney, we appreciate your being here and your entire testimony will be included in the record and any additional material will be put in our file. Thank you.

    Mr. PINSKY. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

VIRGO LEE, NEW YORK DOWNTOWN HOSPITAL

    Mr. LEWIS. Is Virgo Lee here? Here he comes. New York Downtown Hospital, Mr. Lee.

 Page 419       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEE. Yes. Mr. Lewis and the rest of the Subcommittee, I am also joined by Lynn Aubrey, who is the CEO of New York Downtown Hospital.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Aubrey, good afternoon.

    Mr. LEE. Good afternoon. My name is Virgo Lee. I am a partner in M.R. Partners, an investment banking firm based in New York. Formerly, I was also the Director of the Mayor's Office for Asian Affairs in New York from 1990 to 1994 and presently a Trustee of the hospital since 1994.

    I have always made it a lifelong commitment to serving the community, dating back to the days when I was in college. I would like to digress just for a moment to give a little family background. I am second generation Chinese American. My father immigrated to the United States in 1940, joined the U.S. Army, fought Word War II, and then brought my mother over in 1947. I have two brothers and a sister. We were the beneficiaries of good public school education and later on we all went to college. And while in college, I decided that one of the purposes in life should be to give something back to the community, the society, and the country in which provided such an opportunity.

    So with this background, I am here to ask the Subcommittee's support on a matter of vital importance to the health and safety of the lower Manhattan's 350,000 residents and the 375,000 member work force. That project is to rebuild NYU Downtown Hospital's aging emergency room facilities. This project is of equal importance to the Chinese community in New York as well as to the Wall Street business community.

 Page 420       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The situation can only be termed unique. It is a hospital which serves not only the areas most vulnerable and frail, but also the cities most powerful. NYU is the only acute care health facility and the only emergency center in lower Manhattan and the area of lower Manhattan is equal to the tenth largest city in the United States.

    The emergency facilities when it was first built in 1972 was considered state-of-the-art. But it is presently over burdened by the influx of new residents, many of whom are Chinese immigrants with special needs, and is horribly inefficient by today's standards. Due to our forerunner's started financial situation, the hospital has suffered from almost three decades of neglect to it's fiscal plant. Now, with a revitalized new board that represents a diverse and indeed all of lower Manhattan, the hospital is now responding to the community's needs and building a bright future.

    A key element to that future is the complete renovation of the hospital's emergency room facilities. This project is not only imperative, but it is also urgent. Nothing could better illustrate this pressing need than the bombing of the World Trade Center which occurred in 1994. During that crisis, the hospital treated 200 victims of that bombing and was the primary emergency care provider for the victims of that disaster.

    The leaders of the financial community in conjunction with the leading members of the New York Chinese community both are in full support of this effort.

    NYU Downtown Hospital is designated as a financially distressed hospital by the New York State Department of Health and it is the single largest provider of emergency and acute care health services to the under served Chinese population.
 Page 421       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Annually, we receive 30,000 emergency room visits and more than 10,500 inpatient admissions, all of which 58 percent of the hospital's inpatients are Chinese. The hospital uncompensated care for 1997 was $9 million, or 10.7 percent of the total hospital budget. Another 40 percent of the patients are covered by Medicaid. Recent Chinese immigrants to the U.S. are often impoverished with little formal education, no English language skills, and virtually no experience with Western medical practices, and face daunting obstacles in accessing health care. Such barriers to medical services represent a public health time bomb with implications for the general population. In recent years, through the hospital's innovative efforts, it has become recognized nationally for its special services to the Chinese community and for its efforts to improve access to health care.

    Fiscal barriers posed by the aging facilities inhibit access to equal care for not only the Chinese community, but also the local residents. The hospital's emergency facilities must be totally renovated to provide improved access and a comfortably sensitive environment. The emergency room project is a critical component of the hospital's overall capital campaign, the remainder of which will be raised through private sources.

    Planned renovation of the facilities include a designated area for prompt care, that is a service designed to treat and release patients with routine problems within 20 minutes, as opposed to the hours that one normally has to wait in an emergency room. Two, construction of a treatment room for women to provide greater privacy and to accommodate specialized medical equipment. Three, a reconstruction of all patient rooms for easy access and greater visibility to staff. Four, upgrade of an existing pediatric emergency room to provide appropriate amenities for children and their parents. And lastly, relocation of supply facilities and redesign of traffic patterns to enhance efficiencies in patient care. Bilingual signage and translation technology will also be utilized to improve communication between patient and doctor.
 Page 422       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As I said earlier, complete renovation of the emergency facilities is not only imperative, it is urgent. As your subcommittee works to establish funding priorities for fiscal year 1999, I respectfully request that $10 million be allocated from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic Development Initiative Account for renovation of the hospital's emergency room.

    This concludes my testimony. I would like to again thank Chairman Lewis and the members of the Subcommittee for taking the time to listen to our request.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. Any questions of the members?

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

    Mr. LEWIS. Alright. Your entire testimony will be included in the record. We appreciate your being with us, sir.

    Mr. LEE. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

 Page 423       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

WITNESS

BRAD IAROSSI, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM SAFETY OFFICIALS, INC.

    Mr. LEWIS. Just for the members' edification, we are running about half an hour, maybe as much as 40 minutes, behind our original schedule. I will try to expedite the process as we go forward. But, if all of our remaining witnesses will recognize that as we get closer to five, we run closer and closer to running out of money. [Laughter.]

    State Dam Safety, Mr. Iarossi. How are you?

    Mr. IAROSSI. Fine, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. With that precautionary note, just please proceed.

    Mr. IAROSSI. As quickly as I can. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Brad Iarossi. I am the President-elect of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. I am Chief of the Dam Safety Program for the State of Maryland and I was born and raised in New Jersey.

    I want to speak to you today about the safety of dams in this country, the National Dam Safety Program administered by FEMA and request your support to fully fund the National Dam Safety Program in fiscal year 1999.
 Page 424       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you and the members of the Subcommittee for your support last year and providing full funding of $2.9 million in fiscal year 1998.

    There are over 93,000 dams in the United States and 95 percent of those are regulated by the State, not by the Federal government. States have an overwhelming task in trying to assure the safety of these dams. Congress clearly recognized the problem and the necessity of a Federal rule to provide leadership and assistance. States have identified over 1,800 unsafe dams and by the year 2020, 85 percent of the dams in this country will have reached or exceeded their 50-year design life. States truly need this Federal support.

    We are greatly disappointed that the Administration has only recommended $1.5 million in fiscal year 1999 for the National Dam Safety Program, which falls far short of $3.9 million authorized by the Act. Therefore, we respectfully request the Subcommittee's support for increase of $2.4 million to fully fund the National Dam Safety Program, at $3.9 million authorized level.

    We also request that the $400,000 authorized in the Act for additional staff to administer the program, be specifically earmarked for that purpose including four work years. The program, if fully funded, will provide $2 million for incentive grants to States for them to improve their programs. $500,000 for training for State engineers; $1 million for research to improve techniques and equipment for effective dam inspection and to support the National Performance of Damage Program at Stanford University. This modest, yet vital funding, will help reduce the risk to life and property due to dam failures by providing States with the resources they need to improve their programs.
 Page 425       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    It is an investment in public safety that will reduce loss of life, property damage and much larger Federal expenditures for the National Flood Insurance Program and the President's Disaster Relief Fund. We have included in our written testimony a chart of State dam inventory data which shows that every member of the Subcommittee has at least one high hazard dam in their State. Many of these are unsafe. In Ohio, there are 450 unsafe dams; 189 in Colorado; and in New Jersey, there are 32 unsafe dams.

    Mr. Chairman, I listened to Director Witt's testimony before this subcommittee where he preached of the benefits of prevention in a mitigation strategy. We support FEMA's mitigation strategy because it seeks to prevent disasters. When dams fail, people's property gets destroyed; often infrastructure is destroyed and people die. If this program only prevents one dam failure, then it will easily pay for itself and reduce recovery costs in lives saved. Doesn't it make more sense to put money into prevention rather than into recovery?

    In closing, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to recognize the benefits of this program. We request your support for an additional $2.4 million in order for FEMA to continue implementing this National Dam Safety Program. Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to respond to any questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Iarossi, for very cogent and brief statements. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr.STOKES. No questions. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Iarossi.
 Page 426       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No questions. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

WITNESS

STAN McKINNEY, NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stan McKinney, National Emergency Management Association.

    Mr. MCKINNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am State Director of Emergency Management of South Carolina and I appreciate your opportunity and the members of the subcommittee allowing me to speak to you today. I am the President of my peers organization that represents the State Emergency Managers undertaking State emergency management programs for each of our State's governors. I will be very brief. I respect your 5 o'clock deadline and your money. [Laughter.]
 Page 427       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would like to refer you to our written testimony to be presented and explain to you a bit of a problem that we have. I would first like to say that we, as well as you, in alluding this earlier, are very supportive of Director Witt and what he has done at FEMA to provide vision and leadership for an aging agency that you alluded to earlier; and provide us an opportunity to be full partners in delivering enhanced emergency management not only in California and South Carolina, but across the country. At the same time, we support his revitalization—reinvigoration of FEMA—we have a problem with this year's budget request.

    The State emergency management programs have been full partners with Director Witt. We understand the need to control disaster costs and are fully supportive of the mitigation issues that are proposed. But we are not supportive of those initiatives at the expense of State and local preparedness in response and recovery initiatives.

    As you know, the State and local assistance program within NEMA's budget has experienced or is recommended to receive a $11.4 million cut. That would be a devastating cut to State and local emergency preparedness programs. That could mean as many as 200 State and local emergency management jobs—representing about a 17 percent reduction in staff. It is understood that the Congress has a problem with continuing 100 percent Federal funding for these programs that is only a part of the State and local assistance programs. But we also realize that States need ample time to adjust their State budgets to accept any reduction in the State and local assistance programs or any change in the cost share.

    I would like to just remind you that the Stafford Act provides for opportunities to partner at 50–50 cost share in State and local emergency management assistance programs. We have done a recent survey at NEMA that has indicated that the States are contributing between 65 and 90 percent of the cost of preparedness for the emergency management programs in the country.
 Page 428       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would like to reiterate the importance of not diluting the response in recovery programs, if indeed the 100 percent programs were available to national security issues. We understand that the cost share may ultimately need to be different. NEMA has received limited, if any, funding for the preparation for the threat of domestic terrorism. We, at the State and local level, charged by our governors are responsible for embracing that hazard also. Just because the hazard has changed does not mean that we should reduce funding to support critical and low number staffs at the State and local levels.

    The States are committed to work with this Committee and appreciates the commitment you have made in enhancing emergency management across the country. We are excited about the private impact initiative and want to be a meaningful partner in that initiative. We encourage you to restore the $11.4 million cut that is recommended in the State and local assistance programs, and look favorably upon our partnership in building meaningful, sustainable mitigation programs in the country to reduce our exposure and ultimately reduce disaster costs to the American taxpayer.

    I appreciate your taking the opportunity to hear from me this afternoon and I would be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. McKinney. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McKinney.

 Page 429       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, sir, for being here.

    Mr. MCKINNEY. Yes, sir.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

DR. MURRAY LOEW, JUVENILE DIABETES FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Murray Loew, Juvenile Diabetics Foundation International. Dr. Loew, nice to see you.

    Dr. LOEW. Thank you. It's good to be here. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am Murray Loew and I am pleased to testify on behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International, JDF, regarding fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Department of Veterans' Affairs Medical Research account and the National Life Sciences position.

 Page 430       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    JDF is a voluntary health organization whose mission is to find a cure for diabetes and its complications through the support of research. I am a professor of engineering at George Washington University, but I am here today as dad and long-term volunteer for JDF. In 1980, my wife and I learned that our then 10-year old son, Brian, had Type 1, or juvenile diabetes. That diagnosis has changed significantly Brian's life and the lives of our entire family.

    Diabetes is a leading chronic illness affecting adults, as well as children, and it has severe complications. It affects 16 million Americans and will contribute to the death of 187,000 this year. It is also a leading cause of new adult blindness, kidney failure, heart disease, amputation and stroke. Although up to four injections per day enable a diabetic to remain alive, insulin is not a cure. Beyond the raw statistics are the day-to-day things that Brian must do just to stay alive. Besides injecting insulin, Brian tests his blood as many as eight times a day to check his blood sugar level. As difficult as that is, it is much harder to deal with the emotional impact that diabetes has on an individual and the family. We know that by keeping blood sugar levels as close as possible to normal, Brian reduces the chances of developing the long-term complications of diabetes.

    Along with the benefits of tight control, however, come risks. My wife and I are aware daily of the threat that Brian's blood sugar may drop too low, thereby causing him to pass out or in the worst case, slip into a life-threatening coma. Although a cure for diabetes has eluded us so far, JDF remains hopeful and committed to reaching this goal. This year JDF will fund $40 million in diabetes research. Nearly three times what it sponsored in 1991. By 2003, it expects to fund about $80 million in research.

    JDF has also joined forces with the VA, NASA and NIH to refund research in areas of common interest. Many veterans have diabetes. The VA devotes a large fraction of its resources to provide treatment for them and for clinical research and training. The JDF/VA partnership was established in 1996 to improve the transfer of knowledge from the laboratory bench to the patient's bedside. The partnership is already funding clinically-oriented diabetes research centers in Iowa City, Nashville and San Diego. JDF is dedicated to expanding the number of centers so that diabetes research into new areas can be conducted. JDF requests that the subcommittee provide the VA Medical Research account with a $325 million appropriation—a 20 percent increase over fiscal year 1998.
 Page 431       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    This funding level will give VA the resources to continue to be an active partner in this important effort. Although it may not be immediately apparent, astronauts and diabetics have similar needs. So JDF and NASA last May signed a Space Act Agreement that enables them to begin fully sharing information and ideas.

    One example of those overlapping interests is in the area of blood monitoring. When Brian tests blood sugar levels as part of his regimen to keep them as normal as possible, he must prick his finger and draw blood. Astronauts must do the same thing in space to test for any of a number of important materials. Clearly both groups would benefit from the creation of a noninvasive needle that would painlessly and quickly measure levels of blood glucose and other chemicals without the need to draw blood.

    Just two weeks ago, JDF and NASA sponsored a conference on the issue of noninvasive blood glucose monitoring. Last December, they sponsored a conference on eyelet cell transplantation. A process, that if perfected, could replace the pancreas' nonfunctioning cells with new insulin-producing cells—thereby eliminating the need to inject insulin.

    JDF supports the Federation of American Society for experimental biologies in fiscal year 1999's professional judgment budget for research and analysis in NASA's Life Sciences Division of $100 million—an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 1998. This will allow the agency to expand its role in funding research in diabetes and other areas.

    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my son, Brian, who has lived with diabetes for 18 years and of the 16 million other Americans who face these rigors daily, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. Your support for veterans' programs and for space science—not only will help directly in those important areas—but will assist us in this national commitment to find a cure for diabetes and its devastating complications. Thank you.
 Page 432       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Loew, thank you very much for your testimony. I must say that it has been a long time since I have thought about this, but I was—in the 1940's a neighbor of a young boy who was a very, very good friend of mine and he was suffering from diabetes. I remember knowing very little about it but knew that his life was much different than mine. The last time I saw him was after I came home back from college and he was then walking into the Light House for the Blind. Much has passed since that time, in terms of technology and otherwise, but this ongoing partnership that should be ours for most people like you is very important. I appreciate your testimony and it will be worthwhile.

    Dr. LOEW. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions. Appreciate your testifying.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for your personal testimony. Mr. Nethercutt, who serves with all of us on a larger committee, has been a true advocate and somebody who has helped us all better understand what's going on.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks for being with us.

 Page 433       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Dr. LOEW. Thanks very much.

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

DR. RICHARD McCARTY, PhD, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Richard McCarty, American Psychological Association. Speaking for one of my sons.

    Dr. MCCARTY. I will do my best, Mr. Chairman. It is actually my first time.

    Mr. LEWIS. I will take your recording with care. [Laughter.]

    Dr. MCCARTY. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard McCarty. I am Executive Director of Science at the American Psychological Association, a scientific and professional organization with 155,000 members. I am also a faculty member at the University of Virginia.
 Page 434       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    If I had more time, I would work in a Jefferson quote, but I am staying at four minutes. [Laughter.] I am pleased to speak to you briefly today about the fiscal year 1999 budget for the National Science Foundation, for NASA, and for the Veteran's Health Administration.

    NSF has consistently performed its mission to support only the best peer review research. APA is pleased to endorse with enthusiasm the 10 percent increase in NSF funding requested by both the administration and the Coalition for National Science Funding. This increase would support research and education in all of the scientific disciplines, including those in which the psychological and behavioral sciences play crucial roles. APA also supports the administration's request at a 15 percent increase for the NSF directorate for social behavioral and economic sciences. The Administration's request in this regard highlights the increasingly important role played by SBE in several creative interdisciplinary programs.

    Now if we turn our attention to NASA and building on what the previous speaker said, I wish to note that psychologists are playing the vital role in two areas. First, space exploration and secondly, aviation safety. As I testify before you today, NASA's neurolab mission is in Day 6 orbiting the earth above the space shuttle Columbia. Neurolab represents the crown jewel in NASA's commitment to behavioral, psychological and neuroscience research. APA supports the fiscal year 1999 Administration request of $242 million for the Office of Light and Microgravity Sciences and Applications which is supporting Neurolab.

    Soon we will move beyond the shuttle era to a more permanent presence in space. Human-factored psychology is vital to that effort. Two recent examples from Mir serve to illustrate this point. First, the catastrophic fire onboard Mir was made worse, in part, because the fire extinguisher was painted black and difficult for the crew to locate. A second example occurred when sensory adaptation, fatigue and other behavioral variables directly played a critical role in the docking accident that caused serious almost catastrophic damage to Mir. It is important for NASA to receive adequate funding to evaluate the human factors that play such an essential role in human adaptation to a long-term space flight. I have a minute to share with each of you.
 Page 435       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Many similar human factors contribute to the safety of commercial aviation. One of the stated goals of NASA is now to reduce dramatically the aircraft accident rate—and this has received much publicity lately. Because a high percentage is related to human error, a research emphasis on human factor psychology may play a significant role in increasing our national flight safety program. APA recommends at least level funding for fiscal year 1999 for the research and technology base. Within the Office of Aeronautics and Space, transportation technology.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman and members, I would like to turn your attention to the medical care account of the Veterans' Health Administration. This is used to fund the education and training programs of health care professionals. Within this program, and of our direct interest to our organization, are internship opportunities for psychologists. Perhaps you have heard from your son about this. In fiscal year 1996, 1,400 psychologists participated in this program. A recent survey revealed that psychology interns are a genuine bargain for our Nation's veterans. They have provided us almost 1.5 million hours of clinical services at a comparatively low cost of $9.72 per hour.

    On behalf of APA, I urge your committee to fully support the VA education and training program and within that context to consider strengthening this excellent psychology internship program.

    In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks to each of you and also to give you a follow-up on an invitation to the Coalition for National Science Funding. There is almost an article taken from this month's Scientific American—Shedding Lucent on a Bad Hair day—describes the tremendous psychological challenges for long-term space flights. Thank you.
 Page 436       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I would be very interested in it personally. I will make it my business to read it.

    Dr. MCCARTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate it.

    Mr. LEWIS. Any questions, Mr. Stokes.

    [No response.]

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

STEPHEN J. McGARRY, CERTIFIED REGISTERED NURSE ANESTHETIST

    Mr. LEWIS. Alright then. We'll go on to the next one. Stephen McGarry of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.

    Mr. MCGARRY. Good day, sir. Nurse anesthetists.
 Page 437       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Anesthetists. Alright. Not an anesthesiologists.

    Mr. MCGARRY. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. All right. Mr. McGarry.

    Mr. MCGARRY. My name is Stephen McGarry. I am a certified registered nurse anesthetist. Right now, I am looking for my glasses. [Laughter.]

    I am also a Vietnam era veteran. I worked for 20 years at the West Roxbury VA Medical Center in Boston as a certified registered nurse anesthetist. I appreciate the opportunity to present my testimony to the Committee today on behalf of the 27,000 CRNAs, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and the 450 CRNAs of the Association of the VA Nurse Anesthetists. My testimony today will offer our recommendations on how CRNAs can save the VHA money without any sacrifice in the quality of care provided to our Nation's veterans.

    CRNAs administer approximately 65 percent of the anesthetics given to patients each year in the United States and perform many of the same functions as physician anesthesiologists. Both CRNAs and anesthesiologists administer anesthesia for all types of surgical procedures from the simplest to the most complex—either as solo providers or in a teamcare setting. No studies have ever found any differences between CRNAs and anesthesiologists in the quality of care provided.

    While both types of health care professionals can provide the same, but similar services, CRNAs cost the VHA much less to retain. As you probably know, CRNA salaries in the VHA have been determined under a system of locality pay since 1991. This system allows local VHA medical directors to serve a hospital salaries to CRNAs across an expanded area in order to determine competitive salaries. These provisions have assisted in the recruitment and retention of CRNAs by keeping VHA salaries competitive with the private market. It is our believe that the VHA would have even greater success in recruiting and repaying CRNAs if medical directors were allowed to serve other employers besides hospitals in order to get a true sense of the private market.
 Page 438       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We look forward to working with Congress next year when this legislation comes up for reauthorization. When the salaries of the two providers are compared, there is a significant difference. The average salary of the physician anesthesiologist is over $200,000 per year, while the average salary of a CRNA employed by the VHA runs far lower at approximately $81,000 per year. CRNAs draw far lower salaries and therefore cost less than anesthesiologists to retain.

    In addition to salary considerations, however, it is also vitally important to utilize CRNAs in appropriate practice situations without physician anesthesiologist counterparts. Many CRNAs work in a team care setting in conjunction with the anesthesiologist to provide anesthesia services to our Nation's veterans. However, according to the VHA Handbook 1123, there is no requirement of the anesthesiologist supervision of CRNAs. CRNAs are licensed and certified to provide all types of anesthesia services. No State requires supervision by anesthesiologists. Therefore, any attempt by either the National Anesthesia Service or by local VHA medical directors to mandate supervision by anesthesiologists—for all anesthesia care with underlying cost effectiveness without any increase in the quality of care provided to our Nation's veterans.

    Above the concerns for cost effectiveness, however, quality of care should be the primary concern for all VHA medical centers. We allow veterans no less. That is why Congress should direct the VHA to give all due consideration before approving the introduction of anesthesiologist assistance, AAs, into the VHA medical system. AANA strongly recommends that VHA follows their established process and no other if the decision is made to consider the introduction to AAs. I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity and I would be happy to answer any questions.
 Page 439       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. McGarry, thank you very much for your very brief statement and it is appreciated.

    Mr. MCGARRY. You are very welcome, sir.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

PATRICIA ISBELL ORDORICA, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir. Dr. Ordorica, American Psychiatric Association. Welcome. As you know we will take your attached statement for the record and you will summarize it for us?

    Dr. ORDORICA. Sure. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Patricia Isbell Ordorica, M.D. I am a psychiatrist serving our veterans as the Associate Chief of Staff for Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences at the James A. Haley Hospital in Tampa, Florida. In addition, I chair the American Psychiatric Association and Minority Fellowship Program and am the immediate past-chair of the APA Council on Addiction Psychiatry.
 Page 440       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I am here today on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association to present you with APA's recommendations for the fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs pertaining to medical care and medical and prosthetic research. Let me begin by congratulating you and your colleagues in Congress for ending discrimination in health insurance for veterans as separate from mental illnesses. We applaud you for taking this action and for monitoring that the VA provides fair and equitable coverage for the treatment of mental illness and substance abuse. We also commend the DVA Under Secretary for Health, Dr. Kenneth Kizer, and the laudable efforts of DVA in meeting the health care needs of our Nation's veterans.

    You have APA's written testimony before you and I would like to present just some of the highlights. As a longstanding member of the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research Coalition, the APA supports their fiscal year 1999 DVA budget proposal of $18 billion for medical care and $325 million for health research. My written statement describes in detail APA's great concerns about how any expansion of prescribing privileges by non-physicians undertaken by the VA would endanger the quality of care for veterans and expose veterans to unnecessary risks. We will closely monitor developments in this area and will follow-up with the committee as needed.

    I would like to emphasize to all of you that 25 percent of all of VA patients are in psychiatric treatment. The VA must be able to provide comprehensive psychiatric services to veterans suffering from disabling illnesses—such as post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. The APA believes that the following DVA programs and initiatives should receive the highest priority: (1) maintaining capacity for substance abuse treatment; (2) addressing the needs of our homeless veterans; (3) improving treatments for the seriously mentally ill veterans; and (4) increasing research funding for psychiatric disorders. I would like to elaborate on these areas for you.
 Page 441       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In substance abuse, the current threats in many VA facilities is to eliminate inpatient substance abuse treatment. In some cases, this restructuring has been well thought out and adequate alternative resources have been developed. However, in other cases, this process has not occurred and a serious void in treatment services has occurred. In fiscal year 1996, the VA experienced for the first time a decrease in inpatient and outpatient substance abuse workload and this was since expanding the substance capabilities in 1990. These decreases were not universal throughout the VA, however, several networks did show evidence of having targeted substance abuse treatment in their downsizing initiatives. In essence, the decrease was not due to the lack of veterans seeking treatment but rather was secondary to the decision to decrease access to treatment.

    The APA believes maintenance of treatment services to this population is critical. In regards to homeless veterans, given the significant psychiatric and substance abuse disorders that contribute to the causes of homelessness among veterans, APA urges the VA to provide adequate services for homeless veterans. Studies show that about one-third of adult homeless individuals have served their country in the armed forces. This means that on any given night 250,000 are sleeping on the street or in shelters. We believe this is unconscionable. Nearly 40 percent suffer from severe, persistent and disabling mental illnesses with another 40 percent also having substance abuse disorders. We must make treatment available for these most vulnerable veterans.

    The VA's Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program has been extremely effective at addressing the needs of homeless veterans. This program currently funded only $6 million allowed the DVA to provide grants to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations; to purchase, build, renovate transitional residential care programs and service centers for homeless veterans. This has allowed the VA to begin to establish a network of safe, residential programs to serve as alternatives to the street for hospitalization for homeless veterans. The APA recommends that HUD programs for veterans should be linked to VA medical care, particularly mental health services. This would maximize public investment by coordination of VA and HUD resources and provides greater access and improve clinical outcome. The APA urges you to improve funding for residential care and clinical care for our Nation's homeless veterans.
 Page 442       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Improving treatments for the seriously mentally ill veterans are another part. The APA is impressed with the many efforts of VA and Washington to improve treatment in this group of patients. Yet we're concerned that on some local levels and some networks there's been a reluctancy to make needed improvements in the delivery of services. For examples, some businesses continue to rely on older and less effective psychiatric medications and have been reluctant to invest in some of the more effective newer anti-psychotic medications. Likewise some businesses have been slow to involve their mental consumers, their families in regards to their treatment needs.

    Lastly, research. Funding for psychiatric research in the Department of Veterans Affairs has remained disproportionate to the utilization of psychiatric services. Veterans with mental illness account for 25 percent of all veterans receiving treatment in VA medical centers. Despite this fact, DVA resources devoted to research education and even patient care for mental disorders have lagged far behind those allocated for other disorders. Only 12 percent of research funds are directed toward the study of alcoholism, drug addiction, PTSD and chronic mental illness.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association, I appreciate this opportunity to express APA's views on the fiscal year 1999 DVA medical care and medical and prosthetic research budget. We need your leadership to provide high quality health care to those who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse disorders. We stand ready to work with you to provide the best health care available to our Nation's veterans. Thank you very much.

 Page 443       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Ordorica. I do not have any questions. Your entire statement will be included in the record.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.

    Dr. ORDORICA. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

CHARLES L. CALKINS, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Charles Calkins, Fleet Reserve Association. Mr. Calkins.

    Mr. CALKINS. Mr. Chairman.

 Page 444       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Yes, sir.

    Mr. CALKINS. Good afternoon. I am Charles Calkins, the national executive secretary with the Fleet Reserve Association.

    Mr. LEWIS. Welcome back.

    Mr. CALKINS. Thank you very much. How we doing?

    Mr. LEWIS. Fine.

    Mr. CALKINS. I can tell. I represent nearly a 160,000 active duty retired reserve members of the sea services—Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I would like to voice their collective opinions on our 1999 DVA appropriations.

    Since 1989, the Federal budget has soared to over $1.7 trillion—an increase of over $600 billion. However, the DVA budget has only increased to 2.1 percent while the Department of Health and Human Services budget has increased 33.6 percent. The Fleet Reserve Association believes that our Nation's veterans who shared the sacrifices and hardships both during the ''Hot'' and ''Cold'' war periods should receive a larger portion of the peace dividend that their efforts provided. The Administration is requesting $17.7 billion for veterans' health care which includes a loss of 3,100 full-time employees—along with an expected increase of 134,000 patients. Fleet Reserve Association recommends that Congress deny the request for fewer full-time employees which would only further stretch a heavily-burdened DVA health care system.

 Page 445       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    FRA urges Congress to give military retirees a higher priority in the DVA health care priority enrollment system. Since many of them have been disenfranchised from military health care. It should be authorizing committee required funds to it—to inaugurate this policy—FRA urges this subcommittee's favorable endorsement. The association also urges Congress to remember that the Federal Government was an accessory in the distribution of tobacco products to members of uniformed services. Consideration of where funds should come from to pay for tobacco-related health care claims should be first addressed to the tobacco companies. Congress should recognize its part in having tobacco manufacturers provide the U.S. Treasury with sufficient funds to meet the demand to pay these claims.

    Enhancements to the Montgomery GI bill benefits are sorely needed to help military personnel cover increasing education costs and ease the retention prices. Legislation in 1996 allowed service members participating in the veterans' educational assistance program to enroll in the more generous Montgomery GI bill. Legal interpretation of the law disenfranchised thousands of service members who have been counseled to withdraw the funds from their accounts. FRA seeks the Committee's support in authorizing the allocation of funds to increase and expand the Montgomery GI bill benefits and expand the number of members who may convert to that program from the veterans' educational systems program.

    Concurrent receipt of both retired pay and veterans' compensation without reduction in either payment is an issue being long-ignored by Congress. The association urges the adoption and funding of H.R. 44 which addresses the need to supplement the income of most disabled and military retirees. It is the least expensive of several proposed solutions to this problem.

    Uniformed Services Former Spousal Protection Act is a poorly written and hastily acted upon piece of legislation. Public Law 10585 requires DoD to provide Congress with a review of this act by September 30, 1999. Unfortunately this study will not be available for review until the fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act is considered. The Fleet Reserve Association believes that this study will accomplish little and further delay consideration of USSFSBA reform. The association believes some type of action should be taken in 1999 to make the law as far as possible. In the event, the authorization process should require funding, we urge this distinguished subcommittee to act favorably on the request.
 Page 446       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, again, we appreciate this opportunity to present the priority issues of our members and I am ready to answer any questions that you may have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Calkins, thank you very much for representing the Fleet Reserve Association. I don't have any questions. Have you any, Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. No. Mr. Calkins, thank you very much.

    Mr. CALKINS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

JOHN E. MUENCH, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
 Page 447       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. John Muench, The Retired Enlisted Association—for that, you will be four minutes.

    Mr. MUENCH. Mr. Chairman, this is a first time for me, sir—be gentle. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Always gentle.

    Mr. MUENCH. Chairman Lewis, ranking member Stokes, distinguished members—on behalf of The Retired Enlisted Association, TREA, TREA's national president, Technical Sergeant David Paul, United States Air Force Retired; and National Auxiliary President, Ethel Hale; and over 100,000 members—active members of our association and our auxiliary, we appreciate the opportunity to this subcommittee.

    I am John Muench, Command Sergeant Major United States Army Retired. For the last three years, I have served as the National Executive Director of the Retired Enlisted Association. During this brief testimony, it is my objective to enlighten the members of this committee as to the inequities of being a veteran and being a retired veteran.

    Military retirees are veterans, yet we continue to be treated as separate and unequal. Retired veterans are the only class of people who have received retired pay and have that reduced as you heard earlier—dollar for dollar—to receive VA disability compensation. No other Federal worker has their Federal pay or retired pay reduced in order to receive their VA disability compensation. No other form of retiree has their hard-earned benefits—those promises made when this country was in need of all veterans to serve to balance the budget. This we believe we should not pay rather on the backs of our veterans.
 Page 448       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The very ones who served for a lifetime—the ones who continually fought for a period of 20 years to win the Cold War; the ones who spared the patriotism, nationalism stood by until the job was completed. We are the ones who earned the peace dividends that everyone so nicely talks about. Yet we continue to be forced to now sacrifice even more with no access to military health care. Military retirees are in fact punished for committing their lives to this Nation. This is called performance punishment. If you stay in the service and achieve a high rank, you cannot get free VA care because you can't pass the means test. Veterans who serve less than 20 years, did not retire from the military, and are indigent—in fact, get free access to VA health care.

    TREA is opposed to continuing to battle DoD for benefits which we earned and were promised. Where retirees compete against the act of forces need for bullets and billets, military hardware and readiness. The closure of military bases continues to force retirees out of their earned and promised health care benefits. The money for health care was already appropriated and given back to Congress with these closures and peace dividends. Now we must return and beg for what should have been given to us to begin with. The Retired Enlisted Association believes that only by amending Title 38, Annotated 10 of U.S. Code to direct that all appropriations concerning military retirees, including budget, health care and benefits come under VA—will our benefits be preserved.

    We recommend a study to be conducted to determine the feasibility to change this inequity. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished members of this subcommittee—when this Nation called its young men and women to arms in defense of this country, we did not falter. Now that we faithfully have served a lifetime of commitment, please do not abandon us in our time of need. Our hard-earned benefits and promises should be safeguarded, not trifled with. Thank you very much, sir.
 Page 449       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your testimony. I might just mention, as an aside, that I think the Veterans' Committee—the authorizing committee—would be very interested in your testimony. I don't know if you planned to be there, but I think it would be worthwhile to talk with Mr. Stokes' people and see when you might be able to testify.

    Mr. MUENCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you very much, sir.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No questions. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate your being with us.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS
 Page 450       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

COLONEL CHARLES C. PARTRIDGE, U.S. ARMY RETIRED, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES

    Mr. LEWIS. Colonel Charles Partridge, National Association of Uniformed Services.

    Colonel PARTRIDGE. Thank you, sir. That's Partridge—they left one of the r's out.

    Mr. LEWIS. I asked that question myself, you know—partridge tree?

    Colonel PARTRIDGE. That's right. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes, distinguished members of panel—I would like to discuss briefly our military health care proposal that the Congress is working on now that involves the VA hospitals and the Medicare system. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that we were running out of time and money here this afternoon—this actually, believe it or not, would save money. It would save Medicare money and make more efficient money of VA facilities and capabilities.

    The current proposals that—the so-called VA Medicare Project which would allow the Veterans' Administration hospitals to be Medicare providers and allow Medicare-eligible veterans who do not get care some other way—in other words, if they are indigent or if they are disabled—it wouldn't apply to them. It would allow other veterans to enroll in the Medicare and the VA HMO and then Medicare could pay the VA for the care with these veterans. So, of course, they would pay at a discount rate and therefore that would save Medicare trust funds money.
 Page 451       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    What we are suggesting is that—this would be a demonstration project—and we think that project should be expanded. We think in the expansion is where you save the most money and that would be rather than limiting the demonstration to the HMO model, include fee-for-service where a veteran could take his Medicare card, present it to any VA hospital and if there were space available there—recognizing that there would have to be space available there. Management of VA resources is not perfect so from time-to-time, there is excess capacity. If it was there, then he could be treated and VA could bill Medicare.

    And then another proposal would be to allow the VA hospitals to become preferred provider organizations to other health plans, and you would have essentially the same thing. It would be by prior agreement with the other health plans where the veteran could get part of his care at the VA and, once again, it would be at a discounted rate.

    We believe this would be good for Medicare, it would be good for the VA, and it would be good for the Nation. And we believe veterans should be able to use their Medicare benefits in VA hospitals, just as they do in the private sector.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Colonel Partridge, thank you very much. We appreciate you being with us and appreciate your testimony. Any questions?

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you, sir.

 Page 452       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

JULIE SANDORF, CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

    Mr. LEWIS. Julie Sandorf, Corporation for Supportive Housing.

    Ms. SANDORF. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members.

    Before I begin my testimony, I first must tell you that this is the first time I am testifying in front of this Committee and I am completely in awe of both the Chairman and the Members' attention span. My hat is off to you. This is really quite an experience for me.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Stokes is responsible for all that.

 Page 453       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. SANDORF. Lots of coffee, is that it?

    As I mentioned, my name is Julie Sandorf and I am the president of the Corporation for Supportive Housing. CSH is a national, nonprofit organization that works around the country dedicated to the expansion of supportive housing for folks who are homeless and at risk of homelessness.

    Just very briefly, supportive housing has been the most effective and cost-efficient solution to ending, permanently ending homelessness in America. As you know, since the early 1980's, homelessness has emerged as this country's most visible and devastating symbol of desperate poverty and the breakdown of society's contract in this, the world's wealthiest nation.

    The good news is that over the past decade or so, community-based, nonprofit organizations partnering with private sector, philanthropy, churches and synagogues, volunteers, and government at all levels have, with great tenacity, passion, and real common sense, demonstrated that we can end homelessness permanently in this country through the provision of supportive housing.

    What these folks have done in partnership is marrying a place to call home with a whole range of support services, including employment services, health care, and social services in a comprehensive way that has yielded results beyond anyone's wildest dreams. And it has permanently ended homelessness for thousands of people who have been languishing in the country's streets, cities, and institutions.

 Page 454       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We have come upon a solution that not only works, but it also saves money for the taxpayer. It is a win-win. We don't often get to see that.

    Just some statistics from studies that have been done by both HHS and HUD. A study done by HHS on formerly homeless, mentally ill individuals now living in supportive housing showed that almost 84 percent remain in the housing. There is a 50 percent decrease in Medicaid funded in-patient hospitalization, there is a 50 percent decrease in incarcerations, and there is a 50 percent decrease in emergency room visits—all very costly to both Federal, State and local governments.

    In 1995, a HUD study showed an increase in employment of residents in supportive housing of over 55 percent. So not only are we able to provide stability in housing, better health outcomes, but people are going to work, which I think is a goal we all share.

    Supportive housing is a win-win for the taxpayer as well. There is no free lunch here. There is no free costly alternative here. If supportive housing is not provided, we will see folks who—the majority of homeless people who suffer from mental illness, other chronic health conditions, recycle through costly jails, institutions, and shelter systems.

    Supportive housing may cost on average $12,000 a year. Jails cost about $69,000 a year. A hospital bed costs about $1,000 a day, often paid for by Medicaid. And State psychiatric institutions can cost up to $120,000 a year. This is a deal for those of us in the Federal Government, State and local government, and most importantly, the taxpayer.

    We also know that supportive housing can definitively make an impact in reducing the number of homeless people in this country. In New York City, for example, a city that has by far the largest number of homeless people in this country, is also our greatest example of how supportive housing can succeed in reducing homelessness.
 Page 455       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In 1989, the city's single adult shelter system had reached 10,000 people per night. In 1990, the city joined with the State and with support from the Federal Government to build thousands of units of supportive housing for the most vulnerable single adults in the city. Not surprisingly, by 1994, the single adult shelter census dropped from 10,000 people to 6,000 people. And considering that a shelter bed in the city of New York costs over $22,000 a year, this is quite a deal, versus $12,000 for supportive housing with comprehensive health care and employment supports.

    The critical linchpin in this incredible success story has been the provision of multi-year operating subsidies through the McKinney Shelter Plus Care and model SRO programs. They have been the leverage to leverage mainstream housing funds at both the Federal, State and local levels. It has been the only way we've been able to leverage private sector financing in supportive housing through syndication of low-income tax credits, and we have also been able to leverage significant service dollars at State and local levels when we marry rent subsidies from the Federal Government in supportive housing projects.

    It has by far been the most effective means of sharing the fiscal burden and caring for the most vulnerable in our society. I strongly urge the chairman and the Committee to look very carefully at the very important financing tools that have been provided through the McKinney programs. They are making not only a discernible impact on the need, but are using the taxpayer resources wisely. I also urge you to appropriate the full $1.1 billion requested for fiscal year 1999 for McKinney programs.

    I think we all have the moral obligation to teach our children by example that we live in a just and a civil society. We also are faced with a serious fiscal obligation to use taxpayer resources wisely and with great and prudent investment.
 Page 456       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Supportive housing gives you a chance to do both, and I truly believe and know that we have the knowledge, we have the technology, we have the incredible compassion and persistence of many, many people living in our communities to solve this problem, and we would love to work with you to promote the leadership means and will to solve this for good.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Julie Sandorf, we very much appreciate your presence here today. Your testimony is welcome and indeed, your expression of interest, as well as concern, is important to us.

    Ms. SANDORF. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. I would just like to say to this young lady since this is her first time here, she said. I want her to know that the testimony you have here has been so poignant and so ardent and when you talk about the McKinney bill, I served here with Stu McKinney and he was one of the finest men I have ever known. You are a real tribute to his memory and his legacy.

    Mr. LEWIS. That's right.

    Ms. SANDORF. Thank you. Lucy McKinney has been a stalwart supporter of CSH's activities, not only in Connecticut, but around the country. She sits on our advisory board. So I will let Lucy know your kind words.
 Page 457       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Please do.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for saying that, Mr. Stokes. Thank you very much for being with us.

    Ms. SANDORF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

CHESTER CARR, NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN HOUSING COUNCIL

    Mr. LEWIS. Chester Carr with the National American Indian Housing Council. Welcome.

    Mr. CARR. Good afternoon. Chairman Lewis and Congressman Frelinghuysen and Minority Member Stokes, my name is Chester Carr.

 Page 458       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I will be very brief. I promise to be very brief, and I can understand the amount of work that you have to do.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate your being with us. Let us make sure that we have your name for the record. Will you just repeat it one more time.

    Mr. CARR. I'm Chester Carr and I serve as the Chairman of the National American Indian Housing Council, the organization representing all the Indian tribes across the United States and Alaska, and also have the good fortune to serve as the chairman who negotiated rulemaking for the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. And I want to, first of all, thank for all of your support in that process. It was a very, very, truly tremendous effort on the part of the tribes and Housing and Urban Development to work together to draft that regulation.

    In my comments, I promised that I would be very brief. I want to show you that the housing challenges facing Indian Country is greater than in any community in the United States.

    The cost of housing is much higher because of distance, where the delivery of houses has to be provided. The geographic area of Indian Country provides tremendous challenges where the cost of housing is just tremendous. The environmental review that's required in NAHASDA is an unfunded mandate.

    The President's proposed budget of $600 million for fiscal year 1999 means that 107 tribes that are eligible for funding would only receive a minimal funding of $25,000. In Indian Country alone, just the cost of infrastructure and amendment to developing a home, is $25,000. So you can see the tremendous challenges that we have in Indian Country.
 Page 459       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The large number of tribes that we speak about, the 107 tribes, the majority of them are Nevada and California tribes, so it's those tribes that have requested that amendment of funding of $150,000 which does not impact the current level funding of $600 million just to be able to build one unit per year for their tribal membership. So these are tremendous challenges that we have.

    As I stated, I would make my comments very brief. You have our written testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. We do.

    Mr. CARR. And I would also like to thank Ms. Valerie Baldwin and David Reich for coming out to Indian Country and for being very good friends of Indian Country. They have been able to provide a lot of support to our needs, and I want to express my appreciation.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Carr. We look forward to continuing to work with you. We appreciate your being with us and also the brevity. Thank you.

    Mr. CARR. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.
 Page 460       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

DR. STEPHEN YOUNG, FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH RESEARCH

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Stephen Young, Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research. Welcome back.

    Dr. YOUNG. Good afternoon. Chairman Lewis, this is also my initial testimony before a Congressional Committee. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here and to address you and Mr. Stokes and the rest of the Committee.

    I represent the Friends of VA Research. This is a coalition of 60 organizations that are in support of VA research efforts. We recommend this year that the Subcommittee propose a $325 million budget for VA research.
 Page 461       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I am a Professor of Medicine at Duke University. I have been employed by Duke and the Durham VA Medical Center for 20 years, where I serve as a pulmonary physician and intensive care physician and an investigator. I also have a responsibility to administer a research program at the Durham VA, and I have had some chance to administer with the VA program centrally.

    The VA's research program has a long and distinguished record. It has had halcyon years in the late 1980's, but since then has been an underfunded program, resulting in a significant reduction in its total number of funded programs. Some programs are down more than 50 percent in terms of the numbers of programs funded because of constant dollars that have been eroded substantially by 10 years of unsupported inflationary increases.

    There are four programs within VA research. Medical research is one of the larger programs and has had a distinguished record. Some of the programs, however, have been lost. We have been reduced from close to 1,600 to 1,800 programs at the maximum number in the late 1980's. We are down now to about 1,000 in this particular program.

    At our medical center, one of the successes that we have had has been very important to me as a pulmonary physician because of the key impact that cigarette use has had upon veterans' health. In 1953, when our VA hospital opened, we made the diagnosis of lung cancer 25 times. Last year and in recent years, we have made the diagnosis of lung cancer nearly every day, about 250 times per year. This kind of increase has been seen across the country and we represent the norm.

 Page 462       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Discontinuation of smoking is a major problem that we have little success with. The inventor of the nicotine patch is a VA investigator and we are pleased to have that nicotine research laboratory at the Durham VA.

    The VA's research program is distinguished from other research programs in its clinical focus. Seventy percent of the people who do research in the VA are clinician investigators who take care of patients and also do research.

    By contrast, NIH has about 75 percent of its investigators are basic scientists. And we have a somewhat different program in the VA. It is, indeed, a much smaller program as well.

    Another part of the VA research program that I think is particularly attractive is the health services research program. This is an outcomes based research program that uses the VA as a unique laboratory, perhaps the largest HMO in the world. At $15 to $16 billion of health care distributed over 172 facilities it is actually a relatively uniform population of patients and ideal opportunity to focus the efficiencies of our health care delivery upon what really works and what is cost effective. The health services research in the VA is focused upon access, minority access in particular, and has been the program that has identified differences in access by black veterans compared to caucasian veterans within the VA itself.

    The Cooperative Studies Program is another branch of the VA's research program, and has had a tremendous success over the last 40 years. It is responsible for much of the research leading to the recognition that aspirin helps prevent heart attacks. It is responsible for much of the research leading to high blood pressure.
 Page 463       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Cooperative Studies is a jewel in our crown, and we have many opportunities to conduct these multi-centered trials. It is an ideal environment in which to do it and many of these trials are in queue waiting for additional funding.

    Finally, the VA research program is mandated, and I think has a distinguished career in rehabilitation and prosthetics research. The Seattle foot and spinal cord injury treatments are unique strengths of the VA program. We have six centers of excellence that help to promote a technology transfer from engineering and prosthetic advances within the VA to VA patient populations, also benefitting the prosthetic community throughout the Nation.

    There are many opportunities for this program to enlarge and to take advantage of the growing strength in health care research. The VA is a unique laboratory in which to do it, and I am pleased to represent the Friends of VA Research in recommending the $325 million budget for next year.

    Thank you very much for your attention.

    Mr. STOKES [presiding]. Thank you very much, Dr. Young. I appreciate your testimony. I don't have any questions, but I am sure the Chairman would want me to say that he appreciates very much your testimony on this subject.

    Dr. YOUNG. You have my written comments, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to submit them.

 Page 464       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. They will be made a part of the record.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

KENNETH STEADMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Kenneth Steadman, representing AMVETS.

    Mr. STEADMAN. Actually, Veterans of Foreign Wars.

    Mr. STOKES. Oh, all right. The Chairman had to step out of the room for a moment. But I am sure he would want me to have you go ahead and proceed and I will certainly give you all the attention we can.

    Mr. STEADMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. I am Ken Steadman, the Executive Director of Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I am here on behalf of the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW, the co-authors of the annual Independent Budget. I have copies here for you.
 Page 465       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I'd like to take a moment, if I may, Mr. Stokes, to applaud your long and distinguished career as a member of this Congress. When you retire at the end of this Congress, veterans will lose a powerful voice and an effective advocate and we thank you for your service.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

    Mr. STEADMAN. Mr. Stokes, again this year, veterans face real and significant funding cuts while many other Federal programs are increased. As health care costs continue to rise, the VA is once again asked to provide more help with fewer appropriated dollars. We ask that you look at the hospitals and clinics in your districts and ask yourself, is cutting the health care budget a way to ensure that veteran constituents receive the highest quality health care, the quality health care that you demand for yourselves and your families.

    Again this year, the Administration wants to continue its risky financing scheme of substituting appropriated dollars with collections from insurance companies. Already collections are below estimated amounts. We cannot treat the resources essential for the lives and health of veterans as if we were sitting at a roulette table. VA health care must have an adequate core appropriation, and third-party collections must be used to supplement, not substitute for, appropriated dollars.

    For fiscal year 1999, the Independent Budget recommends a core appropriation of $18.2 billion and a total appropriation with amounts equal to MCCF funding added back as appropriated dollars of $18.8 billion.

 Page 466       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The $18.2 billion core appropriation will enable the VA to meet workload targets in an environment of radical change, an environment of eligibility reform. We must ensure that as the system is propelled into the 21st century, that veterans who rely upon this system are not left behind in this century.

    The Independent Budget salutes the Administration's proposal to provide $300 million for medical and prosthetic research. The administration has finally recognized what this subcommittee has known all along, that research leads to better quality health care, decreased health care costs and improves the lives of veterans and all Americans.

    For fiscal year 1999, we have recommended an appropriation of $314 million, an amount that meets the core needs of the program and provides funding for new initiatives and research for specialized services and in tobacco cessation and addiction.

    In construction, we urge you to fund the remaining $20 million to complete the Replacement Spinal Cord Injury Center in Tampa, Florida. It is not only in health care that the Administration's budget recommendations fall short of the needs of veterans. The Administration would reduce staffing at the Veterans' Benefits Administration by 132 full-time employees. This reduction can only mean lower quality and more delays. The Independent Budget recommends maintaining current staffing levels.

    In the Compensation and Pension Service, the Administration has recommended an increase of only seven full-time employees. This service is undergoing its own revolution, a revolution that will initially divert human resources away from direct claims processing at a time when staffing levels have already proven inadequate to stay abreast of current demands.
 Page 467       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Without more substantial staffing increases, we fear that the expected improvements will be ineffective, and we fear a return to the days when quantity mattered instead of quality. That is why the Independent Budget recommends an increase of 500 employees over the fiscal year 1998 level.

    At a time when veterans' programs are under budgetary siege, the Administration and some in Congress have proposed denying compensation to sick and disabled veterans for tobacco-related disabilities. The rationale behind this effort is clearly to provide savings in order to increase spending above caps set only last year in the Balanced Budget Act for roads and for highways. We ask that you join together with us to stop this midnight raid on veterans' programs.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, in the past we have relied on you to protect veterans and to further their interests. Although we realize you face tough decisions this year, we also look to you to make informed decisions regarding the true resource requirements of the VA. We look forward to working with you to ensure that this Nation's promises are kept.

    Thank you, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Mr. Steadman, thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate you being with us and being patient today.

    Mr. STEADMAN. My pleasure.
 Page 468       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Steadman.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

JEPTHA DALSTON, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Jeptha Dalston. Dr. Dalston from the Association of University Programs in Health Administration.

    Mr. DALSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss with the Subcommittee the very important subject of quality and access to health care by the veterans of America.

    I represent the Association of University Programs in Health Administration, which is a national not-for-profit organization comprised of about 100 universities with graduate and undergraduate programs in health services management. Our members represent the depository of the very best minds in America in health administration.
 Page 469       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We are here for the third time to testify, and this is a real pleasure for us. It has been productive in the past, and hope it is for you today.

    I have three points to make, each calling for action and leadership. The first point has to do with the volatility, with the great turbulence in the transformation of the larger health care system in the United States. I know that you are familiar with that. I simply emphasize it to make the point that its wrenching effects are far-reaching, and many of us in the field have had to learn new skills and new competencies.

    The VHA has its own version of that, and it is undergoing its own form of transition and volatility and the wrenching effects of that are considerable. We have been working closely with Dr. Kizer and his colleagues concerning the vision for change, the mission for change, and the associated management agenda. Again, I know that the members of the Subcommittee are familiar with all that.

    Our point here is that we believe that there is much work yet to be done. Much has been accomplished, but we emphasize that there is much yet to be done in the way of looking at the best practices and benchmarking in the private sector which we can bring to the VHA.

    Accountability is an important factor here. Those health care executives in the private sector are much more accountable than they were for mission performance. Likewise with VHA, there is a need for greater accountability by executives, as well as greater freedom of action.
 Page 470       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    First point: turbulence, volatility, and accomplishments so far, but more to be done.

    Second point: We are learning partners, the VHA and the AUPHA and our university programs, many of which are in your congressional districts. For four years, we have conducted programs for education and training, national cohorts that are your own programs, programs that are oriented to VISNs that are shorter.

    We have conducted a study in executive compensation and accountability of performance. Many of our university programs work locally with the medical centers. And finally, we are currently engaged in a video conferencing satellite transmitting program which is really an experiment. Our audience are CEOs, CFOs, strategic planners, doctors, nurses, and others, all being geared to the high performance development model.

    Our programs are especially tailored, and that's the benefit of the VHA in the partnership. We benefit by having our faculty be on the cutting edge in the firing line with the VHA executives, and they benefit thereby.

    The second point: The learning partnership has been productive. We believe that it needs to be reinforced and strengthened.

    Mr. LEWIS. This is your third point.

    Mr. DALSTON. No, sir. I am getting there.
 Page 471       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I heard one, two. Maybe it's the second time I heard it.

    Mr. DALSTON. Yes, sir. The second time you heard the second point to reinforce it. Strengthen the partnership, and we pledge our part to do it.

    The third point, Congressman Lewis, has to do with the application of technology to this enormous problem in the VA to deal with this large number of people scattered all over creation. We believe that it is the computer that holds the answer to this problem. Constraints in budgets, constraints in time, we can't gather people together the way we have done in the past. We have developed web-based courseware for transmission on the Internet to individuals at their PC, at their worksite, even at their home.

    And we emphasize to you that we believe that is the future for the VHA, as it is indeed in the private sector. Private sector organizations are already into that and we think it holds—in closing, the VHA is a wonderful organization. We are impressed with its resources, that it represents the American people.

    As a veteran myself, I am especially mindful of the value and optimistic of the quality and access to care that the veterans have earned for the 21st century. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Dalston. We appreciate it.

 Page 472       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

WITNESS

LARRY RHEA, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    Mr. LEWIS. The next witness is Larry Rhea, the Non Commissioned Officers Association.

    Mr. RHEA. Thank you. Good afternoon to you and good afternoon, Mr. Stokes. I am Larry Rhea with the Non Commissioned Officers Association, and we are indeed grateful for this opportunity this afternoon to comment upon appropriations for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We also appreciate and ask your careful consideration of our prepared testimony and we are grateful for your including that in the hearing record.

    Mr. LEWIS. We certainly will. Thank you.

    Mr. RHEA. The Association supports and asks that this Subcommittee support the cost of living adjustment for all VA compensation recipients. The Association supports, and we ask your support for the President's request to increase by 10 percent to $300 million the appropriations for VA research.
 Page 473       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    You have been very helpful on Medicare subvention. Hopefully, we can launch that this year in some form or fashion, and we would ask your support on that.

    We also ask that you are mindful for the activation money for the four national cemeteries included in the President's budget and the $806 million requested for VA administration to ensure timely delivery of benefits.

    The NCOA asks that you support the recommendations of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee relating to the veterans' benefits administration, grants to the States for veterans' nursing homes, and construction of VA facilities.

    The House committee also recommended a $481 million increase over the administration's request for veterans' health care. NCOA believes the $18.1 billion should be the floor that this subcommittee works from.

    The House Veterans' Affairs Committee recommendation needs improvement, in our view, because we continue to believe that too much reliance is being placed on these third-party recoveries from insurance.

    The delivery of health care to the Nation's veterans should not be put in further jeopardy, in our view, at a time when so many promising initiatives are underway.

    The administration also proposed a 20 percent increase in the veteran education benefit, but disappointingly tied that increase to taking away another benefit. Certainly a 20 percent increase would be appreciated, but I think we need to recognize that the actual requirement needs to be in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 percent. And we believe that this should be done and done so without any strings, conditions, or other sorts of gimmicks attached.
 Page 474       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Our belief is simple, Mr. Chairman. That if we can find $100 billion essentially as was done last year in the Balanced Budget Agreement, and more money being proposed this year for non-veteran education, then we think it's time and we have the moral obligation to try to do something with that veteran benefit.

    We have also included, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes, in our prepared testimony, statements of support for the Selective Service System. I would draw your attention to that.

    In closing, let me just say this briefly, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Subcommittee to be mindful of the things that veterans have tried to do for many, many years, to do their fair share in the efforts to balance the Federal budget. As you are quite aware, Pay-Go was rigidly applied to many things that we did. We froze COLAs on many programs or enacted those COLAs at half of the legislatively mandated rate in certain cases. We added fees and we increased fees in other programs.

    Non Commissioned Officers are a simple crew, Mr. Chairman, and our belief in this whole debate right now is also quite simple. In the midst of a $1.7 trillion Federal budget, we think there is ample room to adequately fund veterans' programs and benefits and to do so unconditionally.

    This association urges you to do so, and I thank you for the opportunity.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Rhea. As you know, the veterans' programs have had broadly based non-partisan support over the years, and I expect to see that continue. We appreciate your being here.
 Page 475       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. RHEA. Thank you. We are grateful for that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Rhea.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, and good luck to you, sir.

    Mr. RHEA. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

JOHN VITIKACS, THE AMERICAN LEGION

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. John Vitikacs, is that right?

    Mr. VITIKACS. Yes.
 Page 476       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. The American Legion is our last for today.

    Mr. VITIKACS. Last, but not least.

    Mr. LEWIS. Certainly one of the finest, without any question.

    Mr. VITIKACS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. If you would summarize your testimony and just go right ahead, we will be glad to hear you.

    Mr. VITIKACS. Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Stokes, committee members, The American Legion thanks you for your continued strong support for VA medical care and benefit programs. The fiscal year 1999 budget presents the Subcommittee with several significant challenges.

    The Administration proposes $17.7 billion for VA medical care for fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, approximately $17 billion is requested in appropriations and an additional $700 million is projected through the Medical Care Cost Recovery Fund.

    Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the recently enacted Balanced Budget Act which freezes direct VA medical care appropriations at $17 billion over each of the next five years, The American Legion recommends VA medical care funding of $18.2 billion for fiscal year 1999.
 Page 477       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The House Veterans' Affairs Committee agrees with this assessment. The committee recommends an increase in medical care funding of $481 million over the administration's request to $18.1 billion.

    The American Legion thinks that additional medical care funding can be met through Medicare subvention and by offering specific health care benefit packages to veterans on a premium basis. These actions represent viable options to generate new revenue streams.

    The American Legion does not come before this subcommittee and ask for additional appropriated dollars. What we are seeking is to provide VA the latitude to become creative in raising revenues through nonappropriated means. This is this organizations's objective through a proposal that we have called the GI Bill of Health.

    Although the Veterans' Health Administration over the past few years realigned its medical care programs and operations to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency, the system is still experiencing a significant shortfall.

    With the funding limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Agreement, VA must improvise and be creative in meeting its future budget requirements.

    Mr. Chairman, the American Legion supports the House Veterans' Affairs Committee VA Medical Construction Authorization, H.R. 3603, for fiscal year 1999. We also recommend minor construction in the amount of $200 million and $80 million for the State Extended Care Grants Program. The American Legion supports the Administration's proposal for medical and prosthetic research programs at $300 million.
 Page 478       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, additional fiscal year 1999 American Legion budget recommendations include $867 million for the Veterans Benefits Administration's general operating expenses, an increase in the monthly education benefits under the Montgomery GI bill, and support of the administration's budget request for the National Cemetery System.

    In closing, The American Legion understands the budget pressures facing the Nation. To ensure adequate funding for VA health care, we continue to recommend the enactment of the GI Bill of Health, which we have had an opportunity to brief members of Congress on; to provide new health care choices to America's veterans; and to generate new nonappropriated revenues for VA's Veterans' Health Administration.

    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stokes, Members, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Vitikacs. We appreciate your being here, and your testimony will be in the record in its entirety.

    Mr. VITIKACS. It's been a long day, I am sure.

    Mr. LEWIS. It's been a long day. On the other hand, we appreciate your patience and being with us.

    Mr. VITIKACS. Thank you.

 Page 479       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LEWIS. The committee, Mr. Stokes, if you have no objection, will be adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. We will begin with member's testimony.

    Mr. STOKES. Okay, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. That, I believe, is the 23rd of April.
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

HON. NANCY PELOSI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. All right, Ms. Pelosi.

    Ms. PELOSI. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record, by the way, and we'll proceed from there.
 Page 480       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. PELOSI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we thank you and Mr. Stokes and Members of the Committee not only for the opportunity to testify here today, but for your past support of the projects that I have requested of the Committee. I'm so glad that Mr. Stokes has arrived because——

    Mr. STOKES. Good morning.

    Ms. PELOSI [continuing]. Knowing the legions of people who have heaped praise on him—in our committee, Labor, Health and Human Services, I hear it every single day, and it's still inadequate for the contribution that he has made. Mr. Stokes, thank you so much——

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much.

    Ms. PELOSI [continuing]. For your commitment to affordable housing and the great array of agencies that are under the jurisdiction of this committee, the Veterans', HUD, and all that that implies, and the independent agencies. So, I know that you will be sorely missed, but you have made such an incredible contribution. And because I'm first, as much as I'd like to take all day to talk about Mr. Stokes and leadership by Mr. Lewis——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. Don't stop, don't stop. [Laughter.]

 Page 481       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. PELOSI. Let me quickly——

    Mr. LEWIS. Like I said, you can supplement for the record. [Laughter.]

    Ms. PELOSI. I support the budget of the Administration, their fiscal year 1999 request for housing programs, and hope the Subcommittee would provided the needed funding and I have just a couple specifics.

    The Committee has been generous to the HOPWA program, and, once again, I want to stress my strong support for the program which has provided an essential commodity—housing for people with HIV/AIDS. I know the Committee is and should be proud of the leaders that you have provided in this area because the whole idea of people with AIDS and the stress that they're under and the additional stress fear that homeless adds to that—it can be deadly and I respectfully request that the Committee provide $250 million for HOPWA, if at all possible, but no less than the Administration's request for $225 million.

    Mr. LEWIS. You may know, Ms. Pelosi, but 18 years ago, I was responsible for putting the first money in for AIDS research in this committee, as a new member of the Committee, when people didn't even know what it was.

    Ms. PELOSI. I commend you for your leadership——

    Mr. LEWIS. Glad to be of help——

 Page 482       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. PELOSI [continuing]. And your foresight. Unfortunately, it turned out——

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

    Ms. PELOSI [continuing]. To be very, very necessary. Hopefully, it will be a memory by the time we go into the next century but, in the meantime, we have to meet the need and this committee has done so and I thank you for that.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate your interest.

    Ms. PELOSI. Thank you.

    Ms. PELOSI. I support the Administration's request for $103,400 new Section 8 rental assistance vouchers. I also urge the Committee to provide full funding for the renewal of all expiring Section 8 contracts, including project-based Section 8's.

    Now, just this past weekend when I was in San Francisco, I went to an opening of a single-room occupancy facility that had been a complete dump before. But, that transformation would not have been possible without that Section 8 and the low income housing tax credit, which is another committee.

    The Section 8 Home Ownership Demonstration Program—last year, HUD proposed a demonstration program to permit the use of 2,000 Section 8 vouchers by low income households to purchase a home. While this program is not included in fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill, HUD once again is requesting funding for it. I urge the Subcommittee to support the Administration's request.
 Page 483       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    McKinney Homeless Assistance—I urge the Subcommittee to support the fiscal year 1999 request for $958 million, an increase from $823 million in fiscal year 1998, for homeless assistance. I know you know—more is on the record.

    Non-profit purchase of at-risk housing—you know of my past support for low-income housing; preservation and residential ownership, and while the program was not funded in fiscal year 1998, I continue to believe that HUD needs a policy to support transfer of at-risk housing to ownership that will manage it well and keep it permanently affordable. I hope the Subcommittee will work this year to create an incentive for owners of housing supported by project-based Section 8 to transfer the developments to long-term non-profit and public ownership.

    Community Block Development Grant—I'm making a request for a project in my district—$1.5 million in CDBG/EDI funds to expand community revitalization efforts in the Visitacion Valley in San Francisco. The funds would be used for tenant improvements for four new child care centers and a senior center, part of the new housing developments to be built to replace housing lost when HUD closed the Geneva Towers project. They're blowing up the Geneva Towers May 16 in San Francisco and I have the honor of——

    [Laughter.]

    Ms. PELOSI. Really, it's very exciting. [Laughter.]

    But, it has been an ongoing—for years, we've been working on this project and now it's coming to fruition and we need the child care part of it.
 Page 484       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    University of San Francisco Center for International Business Education—this committee has been generous in the past. I have a $2 million request for special purpose grant funding.

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will not go over—further these other requests but submit them for the record: the Chabot Observatory and Science Center; National Biosolids Partnership; Delta Science Center. These are Bay-area issues and I add my support to them.

    Thank you for the consideration of the requests and for your time this morning and I stuck to the note so that I would be shorter. Please forgive me for reading to you but——

    Mr. LEWIS. No, but it's a delight to wake up to such charm and we appreciate your——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, let me just——

    Mr. LEWIS. Sure, sure, Mr. Stokes.

    Ms. PELOSI. I'll leave now before it gets boring. [Laughter.]

 Page 485       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. Well, I just want to concur with the Chair, well——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES [continuing]. Those very kind remarks about you but, let me express my appreciation to you for your kind remarks and say that what a privilege it's been to meet and serve with you in this body and all of us are indebted to you for the great work you've done in the area of AIDS which is at a crisis in this country today and one of the most crucial health problems confronting our Nation and, in that respect, you have just been the leader for all of us. But you've done such great work in all respects and I'm going to miss you.

    Ms. PELOSI. Oh, well, you won't be a stranger. But, I think, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just say that no one has done more in terms of AIDS and minority issues than our Chairman and our committee——

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you. [Laughter.]

    Ms. PELOSI [continuing]. And Mr. Stokes but it's quite a remarkable thing that Mr. Stokes was raised in a housing project. He and his brother——

    Mr. STOKES. Right.

    Ms. PELOSI [continuing]. One became a mayor and ambassador, the other a leader in Congress and that he would be here setting these priorities in this very committee that gave him shelter and his family shelter. I always say to him, what a remarkable mother he must have had. [Laughter.]
 Page 486       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    Ms. PELOSI. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

    Mr. LEWIS. We are going to have to follow the agenda kind of as an outline. Otherwise if I start calling on people as they arrive, we'll never quite get there. So, if you'll please bear with me.

    Next on our list is Bart Gordon, and, Bart, if you'll come up. Your entire statement will be included in the record. All of you can make note of that and from there—brevity is very important and related almost to dollars. [Laughter.]
 Page 487       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, thanks for your, as always, courtesy and hospitality here and I will try to reciprocate by being very brief.

    Let me first add my accolades to those folks. You've always brought professionalism to this committee and you've been a friend and really brought a decency to the Congress. We'll miss seeing you here and hope that we'll have a chance to continue to visit.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Bart. Thank you.

    Mr. GORDON. After seeing Joe Moakley and Nancy Pelosi here, I don't think there's much to be left in the cupboard so I'll not ask much——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. GORDON. I'm here on a project concerning the Alvin C. York VA Hospital in my hometown, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. My father worked there for 27 years. He was a groundskeeper, so I'm pretty familiar with that facility. I used to go out there as a volunteer.

    I've never been to this committee other than this particular project to ask anything for this VA hospital. It's a psychiatric hospital and so it covers a pretty broad area, since there are not many psychiatric hospitals.

    The project that we've been talking about the last couple of years—there are three psychiatric wards that go back to the original construction. They are the old mass wards, where you don't have rooms—everybody is just in a big hall and you have communal bathrooms, and it makes it very difficult to have facilities for women, and now there is starting to be more there that weren't there earlier.
 Page 488       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We originally proposed tearing those down and building some new ones back at a cost of $29 million. After reviewing that and recognizing the constraint to the budget, they have decided to change that scope and not do it with—just renovating what they have, which would be a $9 million project.

    The VA has been there doing their evaluations to determine that it is needed. You were generous enough a couple of years ago to provide $2.3 million for architectural planning. They are moving forward with all of that and now they will be prepared to go into this more scaled-down project this next fiscal year and so we hope that you can help us with that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, Mr. Gordon. I appreciate that update and we certainly will work with you.

    Mr. GORDON. Let me also quickly thank you. There was a project close to my heart called Bradley Academy in my hometown, Murfreesboro, which was the original school where James K. Polk attended, gave his valedictorian speech and met his wife there. Later, in the 1860's, it became really the sole education facility for the African-American community for 100 years.

    With your help, we are just in the process now of getting it opened. It really is the repository of all African-American sort of heritage in our whole county. People are going through their attics and, you know, pulling things out and bring them to this museum and it's just a great facility and I want to bring the photographs for the opening so that you can see that your role, you know, your good work really did make a difference in this community and I thank you for that.
 Page 489       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. STOKES. I'm just glad you mentioned that particular project because I know how near and dear it is and we've talked about it. But, in any case, glad that our side of the Committee was able to help you with it and the proposal.

    Mr. GORDON. It'll be open before you leave and so I want you to see the photographs and, as I say, I want you to share the pride that I have in this project.

    Mr. STOKES. I look forward to that. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks, Bart.

    Mr. GORDON. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

 Page 490       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
HON. JOHN MOAKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. LEWIS. Joe Moakley, I'm not really sure why Joe is here but the——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Mr. Stokes gave him the idea. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. He'll tell you who gave him the idea. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MOAKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. We are very pleased to see you looking so well.

    Mr. MOAKLEY. I feel great.

    Mr. LEWIS. I hope you had a good trip.

    Mr. MOAKLEY. It's the power of prayer. Not my prayers, everybody else's. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. We need all the help we can get.

 Page 491       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. MOAKLEY. It works.

    I didn't realize you were brought up in public housing. I was brought up in public housing.

    Mr. STOKES. Were you?

    Mr. MOAKLEY. And so, in fact, Bill Clinton lives in public housing right now. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. That's right. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MOAKLEY. I think his account was a little better than ours. [Laughter.]

    Actually, I thank you very much for allowing me to come testify this morning.

    On behalf of water and sewer ratepayers of Massachusetts, we very much appreciate your ardent commitment over the years to the support of the Boston Harbor cleanup project.

    I know that you're all fully aware of the magnitude of the problem and I am asking for your support once more again for $100 million for the clean up. Over the last 10 years, Massachusetts has had to fulfill the largest, unfunded Federal mandate in the United States with the cleanup of Boston Harbor. The Federal government mandated this little court procedure and the Federal government, up to date, has paid 22 percent of this $3.8 billion that has been paid, most of which has been borne by the taxpayers in 61 cities. For example, even the whole Commonwealth of Massachusetts has it better than these 61 cities and towns that are hooked into the Massachusetts River Resource Authority.
 Page 492       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ten years ago, Mr. Chairman, the Harbor looked hopeless, it smelled foul, there was no marine or aquatic life to speak of, and the waterfront was strictly a disaster area. People were up in arms. Many feared the environmental damage to the region would be irreparable and there was no easy solution in sight. So, after years of protesting the water and sewer rates, the people of Massachusetts looked to Washington for some help in fulfilling that mandate.

    Not only was their harbor filthy, but also their water bills were amongst the highest in this country and expected to increase significantly. In 1987—one year—the water and sewer rates increased 54 percent.

    Today, the average family pays $671 a year for water and sewerage, and, despite Federal assistance, the rates are still amongst the highest in the Nation. My constituents are very ordinary people; police officers, fire fighters, senior citizens, teachers, nurses who find it very difficult to pay for the annual increase. So, without this $100 million in funding this year, the water and sewer rates could once again rise dramatically.

    In addition to the hardship of the families, many businesses have had to close shop because they can't afford the water rates. Local businesses and family-owned restaurants have relocated to other areas just to avoid paying the high water and sewer taxes in eastern Massachusetts. So, this funding could make a great difference, and it has in the past.

    In 1997, the rates increased by 4 percent, a far cry from the 1987 rates increasing 54 percent. But, still, it's a significant increase for someone on a fixed income. Although, the Federal commitment is still needed. In fact, more, not less, needs to be done to ensure that the rates do not increase even more.
 Page 493       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And, as you know, and I've indicated to you and to Lou that we all appreciate that the project is winding down and, although it's just a small dent in this enormous Federal mandate, the Federal assistance has helped greatly. Today, Massachusetts has made great strides in cleaning up the harbor; fish, seals, porpoises have returned, the people of Boston have returned to fish, swim and sail and the waterfront right now is a very high commodity.

    Last Sunday after Mass, I drove to Castle Island, which is a beautiful harbor island about a mile from where I live, surrounded by water on three sides because they have a causeway going there. And, it's a really great place to walk, to run, to bike, and, in my case, just sit and read the papers. It used to smell so bad it used to bring tears to your eyes; the sulfur smell. You could tell people where the Harbor was, just say, it's over there behind the smell.

    But, even though we are mercifully close to the end of this enormous project, this money I'm asking for this year we need more than ever. This money would be used to complete construction of the secondary treatment facility and, once that is complete, Boston will meet all the Federal requirements of the Clean Water Act for the first time in 20 years.

    Boston, with the help of this committee, has come a long way since the days the Harbor was dirty and we urge and appreciate your help over the years. Now, I know that Doug MacDonald testified the other day and he gave you all the specifics and showed you all the charts. We've done a great job. Ten years ago people thought we were crazy when we said we were going to clean up the Harbor. I mean, the phytoplankton was gone; there was nothing. Lone Fish Lake was just a cesspool.
 Page 494       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    But, as a result of the money that we and the Boston area put in, supplemented by the Federal money, it's now about 85 percent clean.

    Mr. LEWIS. Now that we have the Boston Harbor completed, there's the Salton Sea—it's the next——

    Mr. MOAKLEY. What's that?

    Mr. LEWIS. It's the Salton Sea out in the West of the American——

    Mr. MOAKLEY. I think Mary Bono will be here shortly. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Now, I think that's a great idea.

    Mr. MOAKLEY. I just missed her, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. No, no; Mary Bono's not here. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, I appreciate that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

 Page 495       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. We appreciate your appearance.

    Mr. MOAKLEY. Lou, it's been a great pleasure serving with you. You and I have been together on many issues——

    Mr. STOKES. A long time.

    Mr. MOAKLEY [continuing]. We've always tried to prove the government is a true friend. And I wish you well——

    Mr. STOKES. Well, thank you, I feel the same about you, Joe. You're a great member and it's been great to be here with you.

    Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, thank you. Thanks a lot, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. My pleasure. Thank you very much, Joe.

    [The information follows:]
     "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESSES
 Page 496       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

JAMES GARNER, MAYOR, HEMPSTEAD, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK

    Mr. LEWIS. I think Carolyn McCarthy has a guest. Come up, Carolyn, and bring the Mayor with you.

    Mr. Garner, good morning, how are you?

    Mayor GARNER. Good morning, sir; how are you?

    Mr. LEWIS. Good to see you. Thanks for being here.

    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. Good morning. Good morning, sir.

    Mayor GARNER. Good morning, Mr. Stokes.

    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. As a freshman, I have to say it's been a pleasure. This is my first time in front of the committee like this, so——

    Mr. LEWIS. You haven't been here before, right?

 Page 497       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. You're welcome to come up——

    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. No, no. And I'm sorry that I will not be spending more time with you. It's been a pleasure watching, though, and being here with you this past year. I'm going to be very brief so the mayor can have his opportunity.

    I want you to know that Mayor Garner and I have been working very closely in the town of Hempstead. It's a place that I certainly grew up in when I was a child. The Mayor is a Republican and has taken care of his people and very proud to be here as a bipartisan——

    Mr. LEWIS. Oh, my God, are you——

    [Laughter.]

    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. That just shows that we work together very well——

    Mr. LEWIS. We do in this committee, I can tell that right now.

    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. So, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to introduce one of Long Island's most distinguished public servants, Mayor James Garner of Hempstead Village.
 Page 498       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mayor Garner was first elected to the Village board of trustees in 1984 and elected mayor in 1989, becoming Long Island's first African-American mayor. As a successful businessman and dedicated public servant, Mayor Garner has been a champion for improving the quality of life in Hempstead. He has fought against drugs by establishing a police active leave and DARE program for Hempstead's youth. The Mayor has also reinvested more than $50 million for improved housing, education, transportation and job opportunities.

    Unfortunately, the Village of Hempstead faces an emergency water problem that threatens our constituents' drinking water supply and jeopardizes the Village's ability to fight a major fire.

    In the interest of being brief, Mr. Mayor—Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, allow me to say thank you once again for inviting us here this morning and introduce an outstanding advocate for the health and safety of Hempstead's citizens.

    Mayor Garner.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mayor Garner, you're welcome to speak. Anything that you want to add to the record, we'll put it either in the file or the record. You're welcome to expand it if you'd like.

    Mayor GARNER. Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the Committee.
 Page 499       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Again, my name is James Garner and I'm the Mayor of Hempstead, Long Island, of which Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's office is located in Hempstead and I just want to make sure the drinking water is of good quality. I appreciate your allowing me to keep the floor with you today. At the request of Congresswoman McCarthy, I appreciate her interest in the Village.

    We are located in Nassau County, which is in the center of Long Island, and 26 miles east of Manhattan. Hempstead is the largest village in the State of New York and, in many ways, is much more like a medium-sized city than a village.

    The Village population according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 50,500 but I can tell you, as a person who walks the streets of the Village of Hempstead and sees the records for the amount of residential water and sewer flows, that the population is closer to 70,000.

    Hempstead Village is the terminus for the central line of Long Island Railroad and makes us the transportation center for the County. Because the Village is the center for many of Nassau County's social service agencies and public transportation, the Village has become home for many new immigrants who have come to the greater New York City area. Our population is very diverse: 65 percent African-American, 10 percent Caucasian, and 25 percent Latino.

    The growth of Long Island following the Civil War saw the Village become the center of retail shopping for the County. The construction of one of the largest shopping malls in the County north of the Village during the 1960's resulted in the loss of revenue and the tax base in the 1970's and the 1980's. Overnight, the Village began to change. Major retail stores relocated to shopping centers and families began to relocate in other nearby towns. The traditional demands for social services increased at the same time the tax revenue decreased.
 Page 500       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    During the past eight years, we have begun to turn the tide. The Village has attracted new development and began to rid itself of drugs and crime activity, which scared away citizens. Unfortunately, while all of these other problems were mounting, the Village infrastructure was also beginning to decay. And, one of the problems, Mr. Chairman, is our water. That's the essence of my coming here today.

    We have a water plant that's really aged over the years. As a matter of fact, the last well that was built, it was built in 1967. At that time, the population was approximately 26,000 people. And, as I've mentioned in my opening statement, we're up to 70,000 because Hempstead is mecca for a lot of immigrants, specifically coming out of the Central American area.

    Our century old water supply system suffers from age and the threat of groundwater contamination. The risk of vandalism also adds to our concerns about the system because of the perverse nature of some individual behavior these days and the proximity of open water treatment facilities to a major thoroughfare running through the Village and other public areas near the plant.

    Nassau County Health Department data show that since 1994 Hempstead has the greatest concentration of residents in the County affected by the pathogens, cryptosporidium and giardia in the County. The Village drinking water wells are at risk from industrial hazardous waste in a groundwater plume moving toward the Village from Roosevelt Field. The sources of pollution are suspected to be several industrial sites and Mitchell Field, a former Federal airbase and Charles Lindbergh's departure point on his transatlantic flight to Paris. These sites are one mile from the Village limits.
 Page 501       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Hempstead has already been impacted by groundwater contamination and has been treating water from two of its wells for 10 years. Last spring, three of Hempstead's nine wells were impacted by the movement of the plume. At the time—at times, last summer, the Village would not have been able to effectively fight a large building fire because of the low water supply. The lack of an adequate water supply also is having a negative impact on the Village's economic development program. Covering the basins will protect the drinking water supply and new aeration nozzles will provide more efficient removal of volatile organic compounds from the water and oxidation of iron in the water supply.

    Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd certainly like to thank you for inviting us and what we are asking for—we are asking for $10 million to remedy this problem and certainly I want to thank Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy for allowing me to come and speak before this committee. Hempstead—we're going through a revitalization. We've been doing that since 1989, trying to create a better tax base. Our tax base has eroded over years.

    Hempstead, again, is a large village on Long Island, every major road leading through Long Island. We're the transportation center on Long Island; the bus terminal is there, the train station ends and begins in the Village of Hempstead.

    So, I would certainly appreciate anything that you can do for the people of Hempstead.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your Honor, we appreciate you coming and it's a pleasure to try to work with you on this matter. We have, to say the least, not received our budget allocations yet but we will be looking at items like this to see if we can be of assistance.
 Page 502       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. It's been a pleasure to meet Mayor Garner and to have Mrs. McCarthy come to the hearing this morning and it certainly is a terrible thing. We'll do whatever we can to help.

    Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York. I would just like to add that, as a young child, I went to Hempstead. You know, that was the shopping center of the world. It was a thriving area. What Mayor Garner has done over the last several years, which has to be done in our areas that have, unfortunately, had fallen on hard times, he is changing the whole town around. He's giving people a sense of pride of being there and I think that's important.

    The water problem is more difficult, even because we have the highest rate of breast cancer. And, unfortunately, our African-American women are really suffering with this. We haven't found the proof, obviously, and we're doing a study. I do believe it's coming hard on them and I just think it's so important to try and help the Mayor, to bring this town back—to give the people their pride back, but I'm also looking at it for the children. I think that's important. I thank you for your time.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, again, for being with us.

    Mayor GARNER. Thank you, we appreciate it.

    Mr. STOKES. Right.
 Page 503       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Bereuter, you're the next in line, although there are two other people who are supposed to be here. You're welcome.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record, Mr. Bereuter, and we're happy to have you here.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, Mr. Stokes. I want to briefly talk to you about four subjects.
 Page 504       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The first is the rural water training and technical assistance program, an EPA program. Small villages and cities do not have the labs, resources of larger cities to meet Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The technical assistance that's being provided now to some extent on the ''circuit rider'' basis—taking a crumb out of the old pioneer days in a religious community—is a way to provide that kind of assistance.

    You may remember, Chairman Lewis, I sent you a letter last year from 47 members——

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

    Mr. BEREUTER [continuing]. Taking the lead on this floor, this EPA program, and we're going to give you something similar to that number this year of Members of the House whose districts are very dependent upon this kind of technical assistance.

    EPA has just issued a report saying that the improvement in compliance in small communities is much, much higher now and I think in no small part it's because of the technical assistance. I think it's particularly important that this common crew stay a State and local effort and it is not something that can be done by EPA technicians. So, I think a ''circuit rider'' approach is one that's going to be very successful.

    Second, the Indian Housing Loan Program. As you know, this is almost a demonstration program. Yet, I am the author of the legislation, I had a lot of bipartisan support. It is the first program, I might say in some modesty but not too much, that's providing privately financed homes through a loan guarantee program on our Indian reservations. We had a trust territory impediment for the local financial service community to participate in the past.
 Page 505       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Let me give you just a couple of examples in the way of summing up here. HUD reported that of the approximately 338 closed loan projects, none are in default. HUD further estimated there are approximately 150 loans pending in the pipeline and the use of this program continues to expand. Thus, the $6 million appropriation should facilitate over $68 million in guaranteed loans. Some Indian tribes are just discovering the program now. Others have been well along in using this program to give unprecedented cooperation between the financial service sector to help Indians actually purchase or build a home on a reservation. And, it's a marked contrast to what they've had to rely on which is strictly public housing.

    Third, Community Development Block Grants, and I'm going to say something here that you're not going to hear all the time. I continue to oppose, in principle, the practice of carving out special projects or earmarking grants out of the CDBG fund that was reinstituted last year under the guise of the Economic Development Initiatives program. I gather that's primarily a Senate initiative.

    Now, speaking very candidly to you as somebody must, HUD Secretary Cuomo even has some of the private initiatives being funded from the CDBG program. For example, Secretary Cuomo proposed giving the section 202/811 program to the States to administer, supposedly out of CDBG and HOME funds. When the Secretary's Discretionary Fund dries up, he turns to the CDBG to fund his private initiatives through earmarks. This is wrong and Congress should stop this kind of raiding.

    If, in fact, the rules of the game include earmarking for special projects, I believe all communities will suffer because this practice decreases the block grant funds available to all communities. However, reluctantly I have to say that if the game is played that way, I need to play that way too to be fair to my constituents. So, I have a proposal here for you that is very valid.
 Page 506       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    As an urban planner by training, I can bore you with details about why this is a very important program, part of a much larger program. But, I'll spare you that situation today.

    Mr. LEWIS. I promise you I will not hold up your request. [Laughter.]

    Mr. BEREUTER. I hope that you bring some sense to the Senate. I think we've got to stop this raiding. I think things are not going well in the Department, I think there's far too much raiding of resources that belong to the communities of this country, whether they're entitlement communities or those that compete with State agencies.

    Fourth and finally, nothing I'm asking——

    Mr. LEWIS. It's a good message, though. Very important message.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

    I'm not asking you to fund anything on this one, I'm just asking you in the fourth area to use your persuasion if you can in the area of the veterans.

    There's something called the Veterans' Equity Resource Allocation system, or VERA. It has very marked adverse effects upon sparsely settled parts of the Nation. It is based strictly on a per-capita distribution of funds in these hospital networks that are created.
 Page 507       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And I want to tell you that I think you might agree just on equity that no matter where a veteran lives in this country, there ought to be at least a minimal acceptable level of health service for those who live there.

    We are hurting greatly and I have asked for this blunder to be changed. In the meantime, while we get promises, it means that we have less and less money. So, I ask you, in addition to the authorizing committee, to use your persuasive powers to get the Department of Veterans' Affairs to have a more equitable formula, so the people who happen to be veterans in Wyoming and Alaska and Nebraska at least have an adequate level of service.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter. We, first, very much appreciate your attention to the detail which normally is your style and your concern about public policy. It has been my experience over 20 years.

    Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. I also appreciate this testimony and, Doug, as always, is very thoughtful and very considerate and such a different nature. As you say, it does give us all something to think about. Thank you very much.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Stokes——

 Page 508       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. BEREUTER [continuing]. And Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. STOKES. It's a pleasure.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Chairman Lewis, I appreciate your difficult task.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bereuter.

    Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESSES

HON. WILLIAM J. COYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

 Page 509       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
HON. MICHAEL DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

HON. FRANK MASCARA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Mascara, all here? Come up, gentleman. We love to have a panel shown together. [Laughter.]

    I would suggest that, since the three of you have been chatting, you can proceed as you will. We'll be glad to receive your testimony. Your entire statements will be included in the record.

    Mr. COYNE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Coyne?

    Mr. COYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take time to share here today with my colleagues, Congressman Doyle and Congressman Mascara, our thoughts on a project that's very important to us.

    First of all, we'd like to thank the Subcommittee for its support for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project in the VA-HUD bill last year and to ask you and the Ranking Member, who was so helpful to us last year, for additional assistance for this critical project in fiscal year 1999.

    More than 80 communities in Allegheny County are under EPA orders to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows, SSOs, from their sewer systems. The cost of accomplishing this task, if undertaken using traditional approaches, would be astronomical. Consequently, the Allegheny Sanitary Authority has been working to develop non-traditional solutions that could eliminate the SSOs at a much lower cost.
 Page 510       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Last year, ALCOSAN, which is the abbreviation for the Sanitary Authority, developed a proposal for a demonstration to design, construct, and evaluate a range of possible solutions to the SSO problem, including incentives to reduce sewage volume and promote cooperation between municipalities in the area. The project is expected to produce solutions that could be applied in communities with similar problems around the country.

    Last year, we asked for $2.5 million to be included in the fiscal year 1998 VA-HUD appropriations bill. The final bill included $1.75 million for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project which, along with $500,000 provided in the Corps of Engineers budget, provided enough money for the project to get underway.

    This year, we ask the Subcommittee to include $25.25 million for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Project in a fiscal year 1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill.

    My colleagues, Mike Doyle and Frank Mascara, would like to briefly add their thoughts on the need for this important project and funding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman——

    Mr. LEWIS. Proceed as you will.

 Page 511       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DOYLE. I'd also like to thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member Stokes, for the opportunity to come before you today to outline my priorities within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.

    It's an honor to associate my remarks with my colleagues from western Pennsylvania, Bill Coyne and Frank Mascara, and I want to extend my sincere appreciation to the Subcommittee to recognizing the critical nature of the sanitary sewer overflows in Allegheny County and appropriating funding in last year's budget. Federal support in the 1999 budget for the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program, which was developed by ALCOSAN and the Allegheny County Health Department, is absolutely critical if affected communities are to remedy the existing sanitary sewer overflows in a cost-effective and time efficient manner.

    Without such assistance, this difficult situation is likely to escalate and result in higher sewer rates, not improved water quality. The vast majority of these communities are small in population and are without the financial wherewithal to eliminate their SSOs on their own.

    In addition to the cost factor, these communities are in need of technical assistance. As structured, the Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program addresses both of these needs in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. The requested amount for fiscal year 1999, $25.25 million, for Three Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program will not only help eliminate the SSO in our communities, but will serve as a successful model for the rest of the country. In other words, support for this request is a low-risk sound investment.

    Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I appreciate your serious consideration of our request, and Representative Mascara will conclude our testimony.
 Page 512       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

    Mr. DOYLE. Thank you for hearing my testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Mascara?

    Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Stokes, for this opportunity to testify before you on behalf of the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority concerning its great need for Federal assistance in meeting Clean Water Act standards.

    ALCOSAN treats the wastewater of nearly a million people living in 80 communities in the Pittsburgh region that were progressive enough, nearly 50 years ago, to join together to clean up the three major rivers in our region.

    And let me personally attest to the fact that they need cleaning. I spent my childhood years along the Monongahela River in the heyday of the coal and steel production. Back then, our communities dumped raw sewage directly into the rivers. I swam in those rivers and, let me tell you, I was paddling through a lot more than just water. Nobody knows better than I the important role that ALCOSAN played in the early cleanup of our rivers and streams in southwestern Pennsylvania.

    Mr. LEWIS. It turns your hair grey.

    Mr. MASCARA. Yes, it does. [Laughter.]
 Page 513       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    When ALCOSAN was created in 1940, it was one of the most progressive, regional clean water systems at that time when the rest of the Nation gave scant attention to these matters. It was a very effective partnership with extensive coordination among Pittsburgh and many of the outlying rural communities.

    Now ALCOSAN struggles to comply with new EPA standards, incurring fines for flow control once approved. It is imperative that we commit funding to assist the region and restore its heritage of exemplary public health service.

    And, I thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me say that we appreciate very much your being here.

    As you know, as the budget allocation comes forth, we'll be measuring the broad prospects. Last year, in terms of your project, we ended up doing our work actually by way of the Senate and through the conference. We have to actually measure carefully what happens with our rule; we certainly don't want to have your project be somebody's target. But, in the meantime, we look forward to working with you and we'll try to help.

    Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. STOKES. I'd just like to thank all three of the gentlemen for their presentation here. I'm very much aware of your project, having worked on it with you last year, and we'll certainly be endeavoring in every respect to try and accommodate your needs this year.
 Page 514       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COYNE. Thank you.

    Mr. DOYLE. Thank you.

    Mr. MASCARA. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

FERNBANK SCIENCE CENTER, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WITNESS

HON. CYNTHIA McKINNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. LEWIS. The Chair had indicated earlier that we are going to stick to the list as it is outlined, and, as people come in, if they're here, they'll be called up. And Ms. Waters is next on our list and she just walked in.
 Page 515       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Wait a minute. Excuse me. I'm wrong. Ms. McKinney is next on my list and she's at it.

    I'm not going to get you two women mixed up. [Laughter.]

    Cynthia, that's not funny. [Laughter.]

    Ms. MCKINNEY. I'd be——

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record and you can expand on it if you like.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.——

    Mr. STOKES. Good morning.

    Ms. MCKINNEY [continuing]. Good morning, Mr. Lou Who——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Lou Who——

 Page 516       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. MCKINNEY. It's an inside joke. [Laughter.]

    Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for letting me come here this morning. I am interested in securing funding for the CEMA program in the Teacher Center for Georgia's fourth Congressional District for Georgia and for our region.

    Our area is one of robust population growth, it is the most ethnically diverse district in the entire southeast. DeKalb County has embraced this infusion of population from all over the United States and all over the world by currently planning an international village to celebrate diversity, building an unprecedented number of new schools to accommodate this growth, planning and infrastructure, and teacher investment to cope with the growth and number of students, as well as the growth in diversity of the student population. The fourth district is an education district for the adult population is one of the best educated populations in the entire State of Georgia.

    Thirty years ago, the homeowners of DeKalb County decided to fund the Fernbank Science Center. This center is unique in that it's the only one of its type found funded locally at a school district.

    Fernbank has a 500-seat planetarium, an observatory with a 36-inch reflecting telescope, a space science department with an electron microscope, a program that provides science education to students from all over Georgia, and, indeed, all over the globe. The Distance Learning program collapses space and time; via the Internet, students in Atlanta link with students in Georgia with other students all over the world.

 Page 517       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    What Fernbank has accomplished is exciting but Fernbank can do much more for science education opportunity in Georgia. We know, for instance, that Georgia still lags behind the country in science education and in test scores. Unfortunately, still, the United States ranks fairly low in math and science abilities of our own students and U.S. minorities lag ever further behind.

    Fernback Science Center is poised to improve student performance on all three levels because of its unique location in an area of growing ethnic diversity, its excellent facilities and distance learning, and promotion of science education statewide and nationwide.

    We're asking for three programs to be located in Georgia; the CEMA program, a teacher center, and the Globe program. Finally, the amount we're requesting is $900,000 over three years. This would fund the teaching center and the CEMA program.

    I believe the residents of the fourth district have demonstrated their readiness and willingness to participate in and fund science education willfully. With NASA's partnership, children all over our State and our country can benefit from NASA's science education program.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Ms. McKinney, we've had a lot of work over the years with NASA and educational programs like this. If you ask your staff person this, when you focus on this, for you to contact our office, we might very well connect them to one of the major antennae by way of your computers and classrooms——

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Okay.
 Page 518       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. It'd be very interesting effort to connect Georgia with southern California——

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Oh, great——

    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Why not do that?

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Great, great.

    Mr. LEWIS. We do it with third graders and they teach each other——

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Great.

    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. Terrific—Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. The program he's talking about is an excellent program and he and I have interacted on that program, a number of years ago. It's something that you should follow through on because——

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Okay we will.

    Mr. LEWIS. It'd be very interesting.

 Page 519       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. Definitely try to work it out.

    Ms. MCKINNEY. Great. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Ms. McKinney.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. LEWIS. The gentlelady from southern California.

    Mr. STOKES. Nice to see you. Good morning.

    Ms. WATERS. Thank you. How are you doing?

    Mr. LEWIS. All right.

 Page 520       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. WATERS. I'd like to thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record and you can just summarize, if you will.

    Ms. WATERS. Thank you. First, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I must say that this may be the last time that I get an opportunity to come and ask the Ranking Member——

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Lou——

    [Laughter.]

    Ms. WATERS [continuing]. Congressman Stokes——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Lou——

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Lou——

    Ms. WATERS [continuing]. For some help. [Laughter.]

    So, I want to say to him, I want to thank him for all of his service and the assistance that he's given to so many Members and let him know how much I appreciate the time and effort that he's put into his job and his responsibility here——
 Page 521       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much.

    Ms. WATERS. Even though I know that you will be leaving us, I'm not satisfied and I wish you weren't. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. You think you've got a problem, look at mine.

    Ms. WATERS. Yes, that's right——

    [Laughter.]

    Well, I've come this morning to urge the Committee to fund all of HUD's programs. I would like to focus on a few of the programs that I think will revitalize our distressed communities.

    The President's budget includes a proposal for about $400 million in budget authority to create a new economic development program called the Community Empowerment Fund. I think that's very important. This program would combine two of the existing programs in HUD; the Section 108 Loan Guarantee program which I've paid a lot of attention to and the Economic Development Initiative.

    The program combines loan guarantees with critically-needed equity capital for localities to engage in economic development. It is clear to me that if we are to help distressed communities, if we are to grow, a community's economic development is the key. It is the answer. With all that we are doing with welfare reform, it is extremely important that we do job creation through economic development so this emerges as an extremely important program.
 Page 522       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Let me just say that there is one little caveat, and there's nothing we probably can do about it here. I don't like the idea that Section 108 loan guarantee money is used for housing. I think that we should—we have got a lot of housing resources, and, of course, we need more. And we should keep those targeted for housing, but I think this should be purely economic development money. And some of our cities, when they get this money, it goes right off into their housing because you can use it for either/or, when, in fact, you can develop all of the housing that you want—and we need more low-income housing—but if you have communities where you are beginning to use your commercial strips to develop housing and you don't have commercial development to go along with it, all you are doing is creating ghettos.

    Mr. LEWIS of California. Well, let me suggest Ms. Waters——

    Ms. WATERS. Yes.

    Mr. LEWIS of California. You have added your voice to many voices suggesting we do need an authorization bill that might be able to address some of these questions.

    Ms. WATERS. Alright, okay, alright. So that is very important to me. We believe that we can create 280,000 jobs. Work vouchers are extremely important. Many of the jobs have been created increasingly in suburbs and areas where it is hard to get transportation back and forth, but they are housing opportunities. Much of the housing that is being created increasingly in the outlying areas could be good housing that could be used for those who are seeking jobs, and we could match up the housing with the jobs and that is important.
 Page 523       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I would like for you to fund the Welfare to Work vouchers. Housing for people with AIDS, treatments for those living with AIDS have greater need for long-term housing. And the budget is $225 million, 10 percent increase over the 1998 levels, over 74,000 individuals served by this program.

    I would urge you to continue your commitment to renew all the expiring section 8 contracts through the year 2002. HUD's request for $7.2 billion to renew the 2 million units expiring in 1999 will allow Congress to make good on their commitment.

    I would like to thank you for your work. I think we do have a statement that we will submit for the record.

    Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you very much, Ms. Waters, appreciate your being with us.

    Ms. WATERS. You're welcome.

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank my chairperson, Ms. Waters, for her testimony here this morning. The areas in which she has testified this morning, that section 108 program, in particular, is an area where she has been a leader, and this legislation comes about as a result of her leadership. And I do not know of anyone in Congress that knows more about the economic development in that area, particularly using financing, better than she. So I appreciate very much your testimony this morning.

 Page 524       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS of California. We appreciate your being with us, Maxine.

    Ms. WATERS. Okay, thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    offset folios 3485 to 3487 insert here
Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

HON. FRANK LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

    Mr. LEWIS. Frank? Mr. Lucas? You have been more than patient. You were ahead of time and we appreciate it.

    Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is going to be a long day but we are glad to see you. You, too, Doc.

 Page 525       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely, sir. And I ask consent that Mr. Istook of Oklahoma and Mayor Kirk Humphreys of Oklahoma City statements be included in the record at this hearing.

    Mr. LEWIS. They will be included, thank you.

    Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Actually, that just cuts back the time we spend and your testimony is appreciated.

    Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. If I can quote from a book, I think, that came out shortly after the bombing, from a 10 year old boy in Norman, Oklahoma, Eric Charles Baker, Mr. Chairman, ''I dreamed that all the babies and people that died in the explosion came down from heaven to help fix the buildings and find all the victims and survivors. They helped people's hearts so they could build the buildings the way they were before the bomb, then they brought down roses on their wings so they could be planted all around and honor the victims, the firemen, the rescue workers, and all the friends that helped. They stayed until it was done and, as they left, the babies told the people never to let this happen again.''

    Last Sunday was the third anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. As a Member of Congress who represents the downtown area, I have been asked by the City fathers and mothers to come to this subcommittee to request additional funds to continue the efforts to make Oklahoma City whole again. And I do that on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Istook, Mayor Humphreys, Eric Baker, my city, State, and our Nation.
 Page 526       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    In the second supplemental bill of 1995, there was included $39 million to help in Community Development Block Grants to assist Oklahoma City in recovering from this man-made tragedy. Since then, it has become quite clear that it was difficult to gauge the true nature of the tragedy, the true cost of the rebuilding effort and that is why I am here today is to request first, grant money to use to rebuild, and also money to help re-establish business in the bomb ravaged area.

    On the 23rd of this month, there is an approximately $6.6 million shortfall to building costs and the issue of economic revitalization has only been minimally addressed. And that is, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, as I look out of the windows of my office in downtown Oklahoma City I can still see buildings that have plywood nailed up over the windows left over from that event. That is, as much as anything, that brings me here is a request to you to finish the process that we began as a result of that tragedy. And all of us who were there and saw that, well, we will be impacted for a very, very long time.

    And I appreciate the assistance of the subcommittee in the past and respectfully request further consideration.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Lucas, you have been very responsible in the way you present a request to us over time. And, as you know, I was there just after the bombing occurred. It was indeed a tragedy for the whole community. We will continue to work with you and appreciate the two-way input that has been a part of this process as a result of your work.

    Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 527       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Chairman, I would just like to say, I think the whole Nation was moved by the spirit of the people of Oklahoma City after this tragic occurrence. I had the occasion to be out there. I have never seen people who were undergoing the healing process in the way that they were doing. It was something to behold, to see the whole healing process taking place after what they had undergone. And so we can certainly empathize with what you are talking to us about, and certainly are going to try to do whatever we can to help.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes, it has to be noted that Mr. Lucas, when he arrived today, he was not asking for very much money but he wore his UCLA tie, which is really incredible. [Laughter.]

    Talk about sensitivity.

    Mr. STOKES. What a good statement. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. It is great to see you, Frank.

    Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, gentlemen.

    Mr. LEWIS. I will take that tie any day.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 528       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    offset folios 3493 to 3502 insert here
Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. LEWIS. We are proceeding by following the list as they are presented. And the next on our list—that just walked in the door—Mr. Goodling? Bill Goodling, you are up.

    Welcome, Mr. Goodling. Your entire statement will be included in the record and you can be as brief as you like. [Laughter.]

    Mr. GOODLING. I am waiting for my people from back home——

    Mr. LEWIS. Is that right?

    Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. To see you in action. I paid big bucks——

    Mr. LEWIS. You in action, my friend, you in action.
 Page 529       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. GOODLING. Well, I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. We have a very interesting situation back in the district in that the City of York has large overcapacity in their sewage treatment area, and it will remain that way simply because of York City not being able to expand. However, right outside of York City you will discover that Springettsbury Township, on your map, is having the opposite problem.

    And, as a matter of fact, our Department of Environmental Resources. Well, it is not DER anymore, it is DED, I think. At any rate, they determine that Springettsbury facility is hydraulically overloaded, and they have ordered further hook-ups in Springettsbury Township be severely restricted. Now what that has meant to Springettsbury Township, which is—was a booming area——

    Mr. LEWIS. Kind of closed it down.

    Mr. GOODLING [continuing]. All of sudden leadership in Springettsbury Township have to say, ''no more expansion, no more development.'' And so now, of course, they discover daily people requesting to come into the area and they have to turn them down. And it is just a tragic situation because York is right next door and could really help solve this problem.

    So what is needed, very simple, yet effective, would be—which would directly benefit the 150,000 residents of York County and spur the growth of that region again. And when I talk about that region, we are talking about growth such as the Caterpillar, and Harley Davidson, and so on, that came into the Springettsbury Township over the years. But what they need is to be able to hook to the York system. And all that is required is the construction of a small connector pipeline between the two facilities.
 Page 530       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Federal request—Federal participation has helped to achieve that goal, and it is pretty modest. The total project cost of diverting Springettsbury flow to York is approximately $6.6 million. This figure includes legal engineering and administrative costs, and the estimated Federal share of the project would be about 55 percent, $3.63 million. Communities that are involved here are absolutely committed to contributing their share to the whole project.

    Another benefit of our proposal that can be completed in a short amount of time, which is very, very important, in connection to the system is much smaller in scope than would be the expansion of their present system. That would take forever and an awful lot of money. I think something like $46 million.

    Mr. LEWIS. Is there cooperative agreement?

    Mr. GOODLING. Pardon?

    Mr. LEWIS. York is willing to participate?

    Mr. GOODLING. Oh, yes, yes, no question. So the major economic benefits are great and the positive effect that it would have on the environment is also great. So I hope that we can get some help because they are really in dire need at the present for that kind of help.

    With me, I have representatives from Springettsbury Township who have to deal with this problem every day and every day.
 Page 531       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Then I would just shift gears to the little Borough of Delta, which is down in the very end of my district. They have been told by our environmental protection people that they no longer—they must go into a sewage treatment program. They no longer can have their normal house by house waste treatment program.

    To that little community, a dollar means an awful lot. They need about $500,000 to help them complete a $2.8 million project. Now the amazing thing about that is right across the border is Maryland, and because the demand in Maryland is not as great as in Pennsylvania to get block grant money, Delta cannot get any from Pennsylvania, and those residents then see the Maryland people having great benefits from the Federal tax dollars that they cannot get. And it is a real mess. And, again, that is about a $500,000 program.

    Mr. LEWIS. What is the distance between Delta and the Maryland line?

    Mr. GOODLING. They go right against each other.

    Mr. LEWIS. They do?

    Mr. GOODLING. Right against each other.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. GOODLING. So the people sitting on this side of the street say, ''Now, wait a minute.''
 Page 532       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I understand.

    Mr. GOODLING. How come Maryland is getting this——

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, Mr. Goodling, we will talk further about this.

    Mr. GOODLING. Good.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. GOODLING. I will appreciate it and, as I said, I cannot overemphasize a problem that could be settled pretty quickly with very little money in relationship to what it would cost if Springettsbury—were they would have to try to expand their system.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Goodling, your entire statement will be included in the record. We appreciate your taking the effort to come, and appreciate your guests as well.

    Mr. GOODLING. I will appreciate it. Very good.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. GOODLING. You will hear from me.

 Page 533       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. We will be chatting.

    Mr. GOODLING. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    Offset folios 3509 to 3512 insert here
Thursday, April 23, 1998

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mr. LEWIS. Doc Hastings.

    Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is good to see you, Doc.

    Mr. HASTINGS. You are allowing the records to be full statements?

    Mr. LEWIS. I will include your entire statement in the record, and you can just briefly tell us what you like.
 Page 534       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HASTINGS. Briefly, let me tell you, this is the big part of the Columbia Basin Project, which is this part of Washington State. And, just to kind of put things into perspective, here is where Grand Coulee Dam begins. The reason I say that, Grand Coulee Dam, the water behind Grand Coulee Dam, irrigates all of the Columbia Basin Project. This has been going on for some 40 years. And there has been in the past several years, and by the way, these dots are wells where they have taken tests on wells, and they have seen that the nitrate level has come up. They think part of that is because of the irrigation practices, and that, indeed, may be true.

    So the response of EPA initially was to declare all of this area a ''sole-source aquifer,'' which, frankly, did not make any sense because there is so much diversity here. There is no single aquifer. In fact, I can, right here, Moses Lake, within about two miles, there were two potato plants that were drilling down to hit an aquifer and within a mile or two there were two different aquifers.

    So EPA kind of backed away and they allowed for the counties then to look at the nitrate problem on their own. The State Department of Ecology sanctioned a Groundwater Management Area. That is essentially this, these, well, actually all of this area right in here. It has been funded partially by the State, and partially by local governments. We are asking for some money to come out of the Environmental Programs and Management budget for a Federal match to study this and come up with solutions to this program. The county commissioners in these counties are all involved in that. They are anxious to work to get this thing done.

    And you are from the West, like I am from the West, we know when sometimes EPA comes in with an edict, an unfunded mandate, and kind of sends chills through our spine. And so they want to do this. EPA has cooperated to this point. So what I would request is $1.948 million for this Groundwater Management Area. I think the county commissioners can do a responsible job in this regard, and they are looking forward to doing that. So with that, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 535       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your coming, Congressman Hastings. And we will take your statement for the record and, indeed, personalizing this is very helpful.

    Mr. HASTINGS. Okay.

    Mr. LEWIS. So we will chat.

    Mr. HASTINGS. Good, thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    Offset folios 3517 to 3518 insert here
Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESSES

HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

HON. JOHN TIERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
 Page 536       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I believe next on our list, we have Barney Frank, Jim McGovern and John Tierney. The three of you want to come up together?

    Your statements will be included in the record in their entirety. So if you will briefly describe that which you would like to communicate, we would appreciate it.

    Mr. TIERNEY. I will do that. First of all, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity. You remember last year that we were before you basically talking about the same issue I would like to address today, and that is looking for your support and leadership—as you have given in the last year—with regard to wastewater treatment improvements in my district, that would be the South Essex Water Treatment Plant, and individual treatment efforts by communities like Lynn and Gloucester—sizeable communities that are seeing a tremendous impact on the cost of their taxes locally because they need the help meeting the Federal standards.

    Last year, you came forward and you helped and it was really appreciated. You will see some benefit from that. We have always, historically the committee has given money to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, and to other projects throughout the country. Last year and the year before, that are the first years the committee was good enough to give money to the Sixth District and for the South Essex sewer district, and the other projects within that district.

    We have had tremendous financial pressures on that area. But I can report to you that, with the help of the Committee, it has made a difference. The local assessments had increased to $6.3 million. Now they are down to $4.1 billion last year. So I think you can see that, you know, the efforts that were had through this committee have complemented the support from all levels of Government, the local government, and the State, and the continued relief is basically going to be critical in that regard, and that is why I am here today.
 Page 537       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    You are aware, I am sure, of the high costs of water treatment and sewer improvements, and the strain it puts on municipal budgets. They are competing for relief with all the other local needs, you know, whether it is schools, or roads, or other services.

    I can site you one example: in the community of Gloucester, homeowners there are facing between $12,000 and $22,000 per home. The impact of making the improvements to meet the standards that we have federally. It is a tremendous impact for everybody of all ages, but obviously, particularly, to the seniors who are people that are trying to put their kids through school and use the house equity. It has been a crushing blow to them. And what we can do here is give them some relief. And we have tried to move with—this committee has been good enough to do for in such a way that it goes to those communities where it has the most impact on that.

    So I am hopeful, as you have in the past two years, that you would see fit to grant our request for $4 million in relief so that we can put it into the appropriate areas and give a real worthwhile impact.

    I thank you, obviously, for your consideration of this in the past and ask you to continue with it this year.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate—the brevity of your remarks helps an awful lot with your request. [Laughter.]

    And if the two of you will keep that in mind.
 Page 538       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FRANK. Please and thank you. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MCGOVERN. And I agree with Barney. [Laughter.]

    Mr. FRANK. You have listened to us before, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say, first, I just want to acknowledge how grateful we are to this committee under your predecessors' chairmanship and yours. Obviously, this is something that should be done through the authorizing process, and it is a problem because we have not completed the authorization act. A lot of us would like the Clean Water Act to be authorized. The one promise I think we can give you is if we get that authorization through, we will not have to come and intrude upon your time anymore because the appropriate authorization process—the bill, the authorizing bill that went through the House, had problems on the other side, would have accommodated this problem and I do not think any of us would have to be here.

    Mr. LEWIS. That is right.

    Mr. FRANK. So we appreciate that. Until then, it is very important, I think, to do this. Obviously, the great bulk is, the tally still is not being paid for locally and by the State. But what is important, I think, is we do not want to get the kind of revolt at the local level that would lead people to undercut the whole basic statute. I think the fact that the Federal government, absent some effort on your part, this becomes a totally unfunded mandate. And it then becomes leverage against the bill. The appropriate place to deal with that is in authorization. We hope that will happen, but in the interim this is important, both financially, and is an earnest that the Federal government has not abandoned them.
 Page 539       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. One of the ironies that we live with day in and day out is about 85 percent of our bills are not authorized, and yet, authorizing committees say, ''You know, how come you guys are always authorizing on this bill.'' [Laughter.]

    Mr. FRANK. And I think that you point out, Chairman, people have this backwards on the turf battle. Most of us would rather have the other people doing their job.

    Mr. LEWIS. Absolutely, absolutely.

    Mr. FRANK. But I did want to say, this is for both the money that I'm particularly contending for and the money for Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. I just appreciate the gentleman, their testimony, and, of course, we worked with them in the past and we will certainly continue to do so in every way we can.

    Mr. MCGOVERN. Let me just say, I share a community with Barney, Fall River, that has a problem with the funding, the CSO project, and I am here to second what he is saying. And I have two other projects that are in my testimony which——

    Mr. LEWIS. We will look at that very carefully.
 Page 540       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. MCGOVERN. Absolutely terrific, and thank you very much.

    Mr. FRANK. Could I just add that we were also talking particularly about communities—myself and Mr. Tierney represent communities which have been hit hard by federally-mandated cutbacks in fishing; Fall River, by, you know, Federal trade policy and textiles. So these aren't people who we're trying to vest, but other Federal policies have put them in a somewhat different situation.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Mollohan.

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. Sounds like a good request to me, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you all very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
 Page 541       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Got to you as fast as I could, Mr. Saxton.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, Mr. Frelinghuysen and I represent a State in which 7.6 million people share the dubious distinction of having the most Superfund sites of any State in our country. And so it is in our desire, my desire, and I hope, I am sure I speak for Rodney as well, that the $2.1 roughly billion that has been requested by the Administration for Superfund be appropriated.

    In my district, there is a town which also has the dubious distinction, that is, there is an abnormally high rate of brain stem cancer in young children. And through your help and with Mr. Frelinghuysen's help last year, we set up a $5 million study program in cooperation with the State of New Jersey, that is a $5 million Federal program in cooperation with the State of New Jersey, administered the Agency for Toxic and Substance Disease Registry, we appropriated, you appropriated $2 billion last year. The appropriation for $2 billion this year will continue that study to try and determine what it is that is causing the abnormal number of young people to have brain stem cancer.

    Also, of primary importance on a slightly different direction, is funding the National Estuary Program, which has been requested for this year which is $30 million for fiscal year 1999. And it is important, I think, that the EPA's administration expenses with regard to that number be capped at 25 percent or $4.3 million—that arithmetic does not work but I guess——

    Mr. LEWIS. We will look very carefully at your testimony and make sure we calculate the numbers right.
 Page 542       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate it, Mr. Saxton.

    Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thanks Jim.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

HON. MIKE McINTYRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Shays is not here. Mr. Saxon has just made his presentation. Mr. Roemer is not here. Mr. McIntyre? We are going to just keep going right through the roll, and if they are not here we will just. Mr. Blumenauer? Joe Kennedy? Peter Visclosky? Have we cut out for their time yet?

 Page 543       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Barbara Kennelly? Lane Evans? Very unusual. We are going to get very close to schedule here. [Laughter.]

    Jim Clyburn? Jerry Kleczka? Tom Barrett? And I have not seen Mr. Oberstar. All of those that have submitted testimony will be included in the record as though they were presented. [Laughter.]

    Frank Pallone, Jr.? Jerry Weller? Are we up to schedule yet? [Laughter.]

    If you will excuse me, I will make a phone call. [Laughter.]

    Isn't this great? I love this. If I have the support of my members, I will include in the record the testimony of all those members up through Mr. Saxton. Mr. Roemer is due at 10:18.

    Mr. Mollohan, do you want to give your testimony?

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have got a few that——

    [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. I think we have a chance to talk about your's. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. You are not recording now are you?
 Page 544       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We are still on the record. Why don't we just close her down for moment. Mr. McIntyre, we are including Members' statements in their entirety in the record, and you can summarize your comments, requests, or otherwise. The briefer testimony normally gets much higher level of consideration. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MCINTYRE. Great. That is why you are running ahead of schedule, right? Well, that is why, as I was practicing law the last 15 years, those who got to the point the judges would talk good about, those who had to spend an hour explaining it, they knew there was a problem. [Laughter.]

    So I will be glad to go right ahead if you are ready for me.

    Mr. LEWIS. We are ready.

    Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you for this opportunity. I am here to testify on behalf of a very small town in my district that is predominately African American. Its, most of its elected officials are African American, and they need $2.5 million to construct a facility that would serve as both the community center and a museum.

    In this town, of Navassa, N-A-V-A-S-S-A, North Carolina, there is no adequate meeting hall, health care facility, day care facility for children after school, or for senior citizens, or recreational facilities. What we are looking at is one multi-purpose facility that could meet a host of needs that are very dire.

 Page 545       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    This is a very poverty stricken area. It has been designated as being economically depressed by the North Carolina Rural Center. It would include an opportunity for health care services to be given through this facility when we have rural health care needs that come to the area. This is an area that also has been subject to hurricanes. It is not right on the coast, but it is in a coastal region not far from the coast. In times of national emergencies, or the hurricanes that my district was hit with two years ago when our entire area was declared a Federal disaster area.

    Specific organizations, cultural heritage organizations, recreation, and then, as I have said, for senior citizens, as well as for day care for young children, and for students who, quite frankly, do not have any alternatives. And we know the concerns there with juveniles in terms of having no outlet at all for recreation. It would also have the opportunity to be used as a multi-purpose center to include an auditorium for special events there in the community as well.

    And when we talk about health care we already have a tie in with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, which is only about 12 to 15 miles away with their School of Nursing, that they would come in to work with senior citizens and to work with infants and children in terms of health care needs. They would also let this be a cultural center to document some of the African American heritage in that area and could also use it during appropriate hours when it was not being used for other activities as a museum there and cultural center.

    I would ask you to consider this. I think given the amount we are requesting of $2.5 million that this would be money that would be worth ten times that amount in terms of the multi-uses, the multi-ages, and the multiple impact it would have on that area.
 Page 546       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And I will implore your kind consideration.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. McIntyre, we very much appreciate your input. As I indicated, we will, as we go forward with our budget allocation, we will look carefully at your request. Your personalizing it is very much appreciated.

    Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Mollohan?

    Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. That is it. Make sure you leave that testimony we will be glad to——

    Mr. MCINTYRE. Great.

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. I have myself spent time in this area and can say with firsthand experience how much this would mean to that area.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mike.

    Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, have a good day.

 Page 547       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Frelinghuysen was suggesting that the odds are very, very good that in this very room last century Members were coming in and doing exactly the same thing. We did not have the mechanical devices, but it was the same process which I thought was an interesting comment.

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think it is the essence of this democracy, actually, that we are able to do that and bring those needs directly from a district to a congressional committee with a prayer for funding.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frank earlier suggested that Bill Dannemeyer probably did not know about the paintings in this room or we might have been closed down.

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that right? [Laughter.]
 Page 548       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Nothing is off the record.

    Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am surprised Frank noticed. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. He scribbled a note.

    Mr. Blumenauer has arrived. He now has two minutes left in his time span. [Laughter.]

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Do I need to use all of it? [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. You really do not need your notes. If you could submit your testimony for the record and summarize it, we would very much appreciate it. I must say we have a lack of membership so we kind of feel unattended to.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, it maybe, Mr. Chairman, it maybe speaking to the——

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, with that tie you do not have to do anything. That is wonderful.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Good. Well, we will just submit a list. I do appreciate the opportunity to spend a couple of moments. And I will try and be brief. I will be submitting a statement for the record, and I will be also following up with some information in one particular area that I may be seeking guidance from the Committee in terms of what we might be able to do for a very innovative program dealing with homeless youth, as I have been working around the country.
 Page 549       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I have only been in Congress two years, but I have had a chance to visit 30 different cities. And I have been stunned at how people have been wrestling with the same problem. There seems to be a growing part of the homeless population. And a group of businessmen and women in Portland have come together with a fully privately funded program—it actually has some roots in California—focusing on ways to treat these children in a more directed fashion. They are not looking necessarily for Federal funds but I think the opportunity for the Federal government to help evaluate, does it really work, can we pull these children out? Eliminating premature deaths, the crime, and the heartbreak that goes with their, that lifestyle. And so I will be submitting some information about that. I think it is worthy of some consideration.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes, please do. We will include it in the record.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. A more traditional approach that I will be following up on very briefly speaks to some of the work that we have had in the City of Portland with the development of Housing and Urban Development to connect urban housing with transportation under the Department's Special Purposes Grants. And there are two components that I would touch on, one, is the Central City Streetcar, and the second project called University House. The Central City Streetcar is being developed in Portland, using Federal investment in a way to connect parts of the downtown to promote urban redevelopment. The Portland State University is keyed into this through the, on the path of the Streetcar. And they are looking at developing an assisted living and retirement center called ''University House,'' which would provide housing and services to a range of seniors, including Medicaid clients. Having the housing directly adjacent to the streetcar line would do much to both strengthen the Central City and improve the quality of life for the seniors. The City and Portland State are requesting $4.7 million for the two projects.
 Page 550       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Another project that has a significant impact on the quality of life in our community is FEMA's Project Impact. I have been on the Water Resources Subcommittee. I have been stunned with what FEMA is doing to try and prevent disasters and get taxpayers out of the process of bailing out people, literally and figuratively. FEMA has requested $20 million to be added to the Pre-disaster Mitigation Program Fund, increasing the total to $50 million. This increase would permit FEMA to create a Project Impact community in every State. As members of your subcommittee know, the Project Impact Program will help show the communities the benefit of risk prevention, saving lives in scarce budget dollars. I am convinced this investment will literally save hundreds of millions, if not billions, in the long-run and be a step towards more responsible activity.

    We have also a request for some assistance with the Columbia Slough Revitalization Project. Columbia River Slough is a severely polluted area due to its physical separation from the diluting powers of the Columbia, Willamette Rivers. These, the continued Federal support for this program is very important now because Portland is the first urban area that has been impacted under an ESA, Endangered Species Act, still had recovery. We think that we will have an opportunity to show how urban areas can work in a cooperative sense to try and deal with species restoration in a cost-effective fashion and get some of our urban dwellers involved.

    I think it has two benefits: one, in terms of species' restoration, and for people who are a little cranky about the ESA, it may also help demonstrate that these things pinch in urban areas, as well as rural as well. So we would like your consideration to continue the second phase of that project.

 Page 551       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    As I say, I submit information about the evaluation of the homeless program. I appreciate your courtesy today, and I hope I did not take too much more than my allotted two minutes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Congressmen, we appreciate your input and your entire statement will be in the record. I want you to know that I have a good deal more empathy for your trout problem than I do for the New Delhi Sands ever-loving fly which is a gnat that is interrupting a hospital being built. But in the meantime, you know, all things in their own way. Very much appreciate your being here. Your mentioning FEMA is important. Their mitigation efforts are very, very significant. And I agree with you, they are on a pathway that, if designed properly, will save us at least millions, maybe well beyond that. Thanks a lot.

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. You have submitted, you will be submitting your testimony, right?

    Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Got it? All right. Thank you, good.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.
 Page 552       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

    Mr. LEWIS. We will just go in to recess for a moment.

    [Recess.]

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [presiding]. Thank you Mr. Visclosky for being with us. Again, a copy of your entire statement will be put in the record. Thank you very much for being with us.

    Mr. VISCLOSKY. Chairman, thank you very much. The members of the Committee, the staff have been very good to work with the past. You have been very kind, considerate, and generous in the past, and I would anticipate working closely with you as we approach PARKA. The statement is a matter of public record and appreciate your consideration.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments, David?

    Mr. PRICE. No, glad to have our colleague here.

 Page 553       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are really moving along here.

    Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thanks.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

HON. BARBARA B. KENNELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Pleased to welcome Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly, how are you? Thank you for coming.

    Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. I never saw such speedy——

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are really coming along.

    Barbara, a copy of your full statement will be put in the record, and we welcome you here this morning.
 Page 554       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Oh, thank you so much, Rodney. And thank you all for having me here this morning to be able to testify about a project that is very near and dear to my heart. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think you do know the City of Hartford and you know its proud history, and this is an area right downtown, away from downtown, which is very, very key to the area.

    Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Thank you. Sorry for that. Please proceed.

    Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record. I am sure he probably told you that, and, you know, we are happy to see you.

    Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. I want to tell you about an ambitious and important revitalization project being undertaken in my hometown of Hartford, Connecticut and to ask for your support for my request of $5.9 million in Economic Development Initiative funds for severely depressed Southside city.

    I was just saying, Mr. Chairman, that when people think of Hartford, Connecticut, they often think of the insurance capital of the world. Unfortunately, Hartford is the fourth poorest city in the Nation of cities over 100,000. Its residents continue to struggle through difficult economic times. A 1990 survey for the Southeast neighborhood that we are, excuse me, the Southside neighborhood, that we are talking about found that 62 percent of all households are below poverty, 72 percent headed by single heads of the household, and only half of the over the age of, only half of the people over the age of 28 have finished high school. Forty-five percent of the children who start high school drop out, many fail——
 Page 555       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Is that right?

    Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. This is, no one realizes about Hartford, Connecticut, but unfortunately this is developed a, we have very, very, very strong zoning regulations within the surrounding suburbs, and very large lot sites. So they are very difficult for somebody in poverty to come out of the city into the surrounding area, and so, as a result, there has been an impact building up for years.

    Fortunately, the city and its community leaders and organizations have not turned their back on the Southside neighborhood. Instead they have come together to turn this trend around and to make this city and its neighborhoods thrive again. The Southside Institution Neighborhood Alliance, SINA, is working on a community investment, a renewal plan, to revitalize 15 block areas in the heart of the historic Frog Hollow, Barry Square neighborhoods of Hartford. SINA, led by Trinity College, the Connecticut Children Medical Center, of Hartford Hospital, the Institute of Living, and Connecticut Public Television and Radio, have already contributed $10 million of their resources to this project, this community-based project.

    I would like to mention to you, Mr. Chairman, that Trinity College is now headed up with an incredibly vital, exciting new president, Evan Duvell, who has really put his life on the line for this neighborhood. And part of his taking the job was that he could be involved intimately with the revitalization of the area around Trinity College which, as you know, is a longstanding, well-known college. And the Connecticut Children Medical Center is a new hospital, Mr. Chairman, which has several funds in it and could not have been completed unless Federal funds had been allowed to go into that hospital. The hospital is a magnificent hospital, but, unfortunately, as we all know, children's hospitals do not get Medicare payments. So many things are going on here but because of the leadership of the city and the people involved, there is great hope.
 Page 556       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Neighborhood Initiative encompasses projects to renew housing, increase home ownership and employment opportunities, spark retail and commercial development, expand parking, and improve streetscapes. It is estimated these projects will result in 400 new jobs.

    The second part of this renewal project is the Learning Corridor. This is what I am very excited about which would be constructed over the next four years on the site of a former bus garage which I, as a city councilwoman, got taken down because the environmental problems of that bus garage, and it has been acquired. Since then it went to the State of the Connecticut, and it is back to have some wonderful things happen on this area. The site will house the regional Montessori-style public elementary school; a public neighborhood middle school; a regional math, science and technology high school; a resource center; a regional arts high school program; and a professional teacher training and development center.

    While SINA and its partners have met success since the beginning of this initiative in 1996, more needs to be done. Let me illustrate some of these successes. SINA has raised $3 million for the Family Life Center, $1.2 million in private funds for the construction of Boy's and Girl's Club.

    The list goes on, Mr. Chairman. What I am trying to emphasize is there is leadership, there is money being put forth from the community, and this is why this additional help, it is not as if we are coming when there is nothing happening, we are coming because so much is happening that this could really make things blossom.

 Page 557       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    SINA has also cleared up a major hazardous waste site, provided financial assistance to the Hartford Police Department in its fight against drugs. It is truly a community-based effort focused on all aspects of life for the residents of this area around the greater downtown Hartford, moving out into the surrounding neighborhoods. Federal support to leverage the private, corporation, and local money is in place of being raised, is critical to the overall success of the neighborhood initiative. The $5.9 million which I have requested would be used for the following comprehensive developments: $2.6 for gap financing for first-time homeowners; $2.5 million for the development of 25,000 square feet of rental space for unemployed and underemployed community residents; the Learning Corridor, as I talked about, a $750,000 Micro loan program. It is estimated that the funding will create 84 new home ownership places, and this is where Mr. Duvell has become so incredibly successful in Trinity buying up property around the college and really emphasizing home ownership within that area with the hospitals with Trinity College. It is all there, made to be better.

    The project is a critical step for the revitalizing of the Crest neighborhood and the city of Hartford and I would appreciate any support you might give me; there is great support at home for this project. I am asking that we get more support. The Federal government has been supportive and I thank you very much for the time you have given me.

    Mr. LEWIS. Congresswoman Kennelly, we appreciate your coming and personalizing these problems. Hartford, Connecticut, does provide that vision that you suggest. You think of the insurance companies, this new leadership, Trinity College being tapped as a resource. All of that is very logical to me and if we can help, that's fine.

    Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
 Page 558       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PRICE. No questions. I know that this project has received national attention though; the leadership of Trinity College and working with the city.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Kennedy, your questions have been submitted for the record; we'll see you later. [Laughter.]

    Ms. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. Good to see you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS

HON. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY II, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

    Mr. LEWIS. I was only partially kidding. Get up here, Joe.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 559       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Brevity is important.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I get the message. The quicker I talk, the more money I get? [Laughter.]

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk before the Committee this morning.

    I am here to discuss the need for increased funding for homeless programs in our country. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you have been one of the strongest voices for continued support for housing programs and it has been very, very critical to many, many very poor people around the country to have had your leadership and I want to thank you for that. I know how difficult some of those fights have been in the last couple of years and how much you have, in fact, stood up for HUD in times when it was easy to take potshots at that agency. So I, first of all I want to thank you, and other members of the Committee, for the work that you have done and just let you know that despite your very important efforts, as you are well aware, homeless funding and housing in general has suffered unbelievable budget cuts in comparison to almost every other Federal agency.

    In the last couple of years we have seen housing funding generally cut by almost 25 percent and the same with homeless funding at the same time. And, as a result, the amount of money has been reduced to just over about $820 million. The fact of the matter of it that while the economy is booming and we see so many statistics about how well things are going, if you look at actually what is going at the homeless shelters across our country we see unbelievable increases in the demand for homeless shelter system.
 Page 560       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I think the nationwide studies the Council of Mayors recently indicated that there was a 64 percent increase in demand on homeless shelters. I have spent time going around to homeless shelters across Massachusetts. Just in the last month I probably visited over a dozen of them, Mr. Chairman, and every one of them has—and I can give you a whole list of statistics on the increases, but the fact of the matter is that the demand is staggering and it is staggering at a time when generally you see, at least on a traditional basis, that with the coming of the warmer months people tend not to use these shelters as much, and yet, at this particular time, we see the demand increasing.

    I know that you are aware that the Chairman, as well as the Ranking Member, including the chairman of the Housing Committee, Mr. Lazio, and myself have all written to you and members of this committee asking for a billion dollar level instead of the $823 million. I know funds are short, but I do believe that this is an important program.

    HUD has come up with a way to, I think, fund this program without asking for an overall aggregate increase in their budget authority numbers so I am hopeful that maybe we can find a way of actually getting them the increase that they really need this year.

    This isn't the kind of situation where I hoped we go from $823 million, with a smaller increase to, and I really hope we can get to the billion dollar level of funding this year, which would really just restore it to where it was, you know, about four or five years ago.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Kennedy, we very much appreciate your input. I know that you are as aware as any Member of the House that authorization would help us a lot in this process. You are one of the people who is banging on the door saying we ought to get that job.
 Page 561       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Indeed, it is important to the Committee. We do not want to do the authorizing work on our subcommittee and yet we don't really have much alternative.

    So your continued effort there—I wish that Mr. Stokes was able to be here for this is his last year and I know he would want to join with the rest of us expressing our appreciation to you as you go on to expanded horizons. We will miss your smile as well as your voice.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I don't know how ''expanded'' they'll be, Mr. Chairman, but, nevertheless, they will be challenging, and I am looking to them.

    You know, I very much appreciate and I always had hoped that we could find a way to get these bills authorized. I think it is important that people take the authorization process much more seriously and find ways to compromise on issues to enable a bill to get passed into law. As you know, this has really become an issue over some intractability on individuals' behalf, because I think we have found ways to get these bills passed, and passed overwhelmingly, but the truth of the matter is that people don't, in the end, between the House and the Senate find a way to compromise out the differences. So it doesn't quite work.

    So it's up to you, and we need the billion dollars. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for coming and asking.

    Mr. Price.
 Page 562       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to our colleague, a classmate, in my case. We came in together and were on the Banking Committee together for a number of years, and Joe's continued to be a strong advocate on that authorizing committee. So I appreciate what you are trying to do there and hope that we can figure out some way through our appropriation to be of help, because these are urgent needs. You are certainly correct about that.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you very much.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Joe. Good luck to you.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you. I appreciate it.

    Could I ask you, Mr. Chairman. Have you formed any opinions about the whole issue in terms FHA versus Fannie in terms of raising the ceilings on the loan limits?

    Mr. LEWIS. We certainly have no formal position. There, too, we are awaiting the authorizers. There are people who suggested that perhaps that should be done by way of this bill, and being from the West, where we have high house prices, there is some temptation, but at the same time we want to see if the system will work. For a while we're going to massage that before we make a decision here.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well, all I would say is, if you are looking for the billion dollars, that would be a way to get it. [Laughter.]
 Page 563       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. It's like $400 million, as I understand it.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Really you are correct on all of this. I heard by way of an echo over here that we might pick it up by way of permission from the authorizers.

    Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Absolutely. [Laughter.]

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

WITNESS

HON. LANE EVANS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. LEWIS. Lane Evans has been very patient during all of this. Mr. Evans come on up.

    Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 564       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. You probably don't know, we've been trying to go by the way of order of the list, and while you were patiently here, Joe popped in.

    Mr. EVANS. I think you are right on time, actually, trying to run a good committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. I would like to submit a written statement for the daily record.

    Mr. LEWIS. It will be included in its entirety and if you'd summarize it for us, we'd appreciate it.

    Mr. EVANS. I also want to pay tribute to our colleague, Mr. Stokes, who is leaving us. He's been a good voice for veterans in Congress and we appreciate his many years of service to our country.

    Congress in the face of competing demands must demonstrate the courage our veterans have repeatedly shown over the decade. We've got to have the courage to provide nothing less than the resources needed to adequately fund benefits for veterans. The House Committee on Appropriations, and this subcommittee in particular, have a unique and special opportunity and responsibility to provide those resources needed to meet our Nation's obligation to its veterans.

    For the next fiscal year, I request that you provide no less than $18.1 billion for veterans' health care, an increase of $481 million over the Administration's recommendation; a 20 percent increase in current education benefits for veterans, their dependents, and survivors, not contingent on the proposed elimination of compensation for smoking-related illnesses determined by the VA to be service connected.
 Page 565       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we improve education and make sure that veterans on the GI bill are not left out getting adequate resources to go to college and vocational schools.

    For the Veterans' Benefit Administration $21 million over the Administration's request to improve claims processing and related employee training; a total of $865,000 for the veterans' consortium pro bono program, which provides lawyers to needy veterans who are appealing VA decisions at the Court of Veterans Appeals; $43 million above the administration's request for grants to the States for grants to veterans' nursing home; $134 million more than requested by the administration for construction of VA facilities, and I have a number of other proposals, Mr. Chairman, that I will put into the record.

    I just want to finally conclude that 50 years ago, President Roosevelt reminded the American people that, ''Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them.''

    America's veterans have kept their solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and in so doing, they have made extraordinary sacrifices in order to preserve the liberties and freedoms that we take for granted.

    Thank you for the opportunity.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Evans, your testimony is very much appreciated. Very few Members come and go through ten pages in two minutes.
 Page 566       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add my welcome to our colleague and thank you for your testimony.

    Mr. EVANS. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Jim Clyburn's been here for a while. Come on up, Jim. Did you see that? How fast he went through that? [Laughter.]

    Mr. EVANS. Oh, yes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, good to see you.

    Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. It's nice talking to you. Thank you for allowing me to be here. I appreciate this opportunity and want to talk to you on behalf of three projects in South Carolina's Sixth Congressional District.
 Page 567       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The first project is the Lake Marion Regional Water Agency. This is a dynamic initiative which will provide much needed potable water for residents in fourteen municipalities and six counties in my district. Most remarkably, all of the jurisdictions in the service area have signed into the agreement called the Lake Marion Regional Agency to provide the required service. The project will include a water intake at Lake Marion, a water treatment plant, and transmission lines to meet a projected maximum demand of 21 million gallons a day by the year 2015.

    Mr. Chairman, when the Roosevelt administration constructed Lakes Marion and Moultrie, it implemented the largest WPA project east of the Mississippi. I view this Lake Marion Regional Water Agency as a natural extension of this federally-recognized resource.

    Mr. LEWIS. Was it WPA constructed?

    Mr. CLYBURN. The problem we have here though, Mr. Chairman, is that this projected system is surrounded by, of the area contains high unemployment, largest concentration of minorities, highest levels of poverty, and the largest concentration of welfare recipients in our State.

    Yet, it is surrounded by 8 technical colleges, 12 four-year institutions, colleges and universities, and the Port of Charleston, and 2 interstate highways.

    Yet, all of this is to no avail if we do not cure the quality of water in this area so we can attract industry.
 Page 568       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Now, the second project I am talking about is the Shulerville/Honey Hill Water Project in Berkeley County. This project will provide potable water service to over 700 residences and businesses, and two public schools. Why this project is so important to us is that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control has already put us on notice that this area is going to be declared an imminent health risk to South Carolina. Two schools, two public schools, two big industries, 700 residents—we really need to do something about this, Mr. Chairman. In fact, Macedonia High School, located in this area, burned to the ground a couple of years ago because there aren't any hydrants at all in this area.

    Now the third project that I want to talk to you about is the Williamsburg County Industrial Park. It is located in Williamsburg County, South Carolina, a county that ever since I've been in the Congress, ever since I can remember, has had the highest unemployment in South Carolina, usually between 14 and 20 percent every month.

    A dramatic drop in the month of March and it is attributed to trade and tourism, but if you are going to sustain that, you need an industrial park in this area and we are asking for $1.5 million to do that, Mr. Chairman. We believe that the people in this county are very deserving of more activity on their behalf and are asking for your consideration today or remedial projects to do things where a high concentration of people live, yet, they are the things that people take for granted outside of this area.

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me, just make a couple of points. I wish that Mr. Stokes were here, but I know that you will communicate personally with him about some of these types of concerns.
 Page 569       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I, frankly, am grateful that the Congress doesn't determine where hydrants should go. I mean, that should be a fundamental problem of the local planning people. Sometimes we can help with funding dollar resources that allow that planning to go forward in terms of real product, but there needs to be a plan, a comprehensive plan on the part of people that will use these money successfully.

    But another item relative to this area that struck me as you provided your testimony is this consortium of colleges and universities that has potential in terms of impacting and motivating the educational opportunities for the young people, especially in that impacted community. I presume there may be some consortium effort going on. If not, I think it would be very worthwhile.

    Mr. CLYBURN. Well, absolutely. And I agree with you. In fact, the school that I'm a graduate of is located in this area, and we are educating people. The only problem is these people have to leave if they ever want employment.

    The most dramatic thing I find in this area—and this is about six to seven miles along Interstate 95 that I'm talking about, and in that seven-mile stretch, we're producing $28 million of work per day. The same stretch, the same distance along I–85 up in Greenville/Spartanburg they produce $242 million a day. We're talking about the difference in 792 industries up there and 95 industries in this area. The difference is 9,000 jobs in this area and 67,000 up there. And you are not going to cure that problem if you do not cure the potable water problems in this area.

 Page 570       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We can educate all that all you want. But if they want to employ, if they want to raise their quality of life, if they want to lower their instances of diseases, we've got to cure the water problems in this area, and the State has not committed itself to this.

    It took me four of the five years I've been here to get these municipalities and these six counties all in the same room to sign the agreement. And I've been working on this since I've been here. I feel that we over halfway there by doing that, but I do know that, in spite of a willingness to now sit down together, we are going to have to find the resources for them, and the State has now begun to make a commitment. I announced in the Federal Government to make a commitment as well. I believe we can really see a dramatic change in the quality of life as well as the opportunities for the people in this area if we can have a commitment.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much for coming, Mr. Clyburn. We will have your entire testimony in the record.

    Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

 Page 571       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
MILWAUKEE METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT

WITNESSES

HON. THOMAS M. BARRETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

HON. JERRY KLECZKA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. LEWIS. Are Mr. Kleczka and Mr. Barrett here? If you will come up.

    Gentlemen, your testimony will be included in the record in its entirety and you may be as brief as you wish.

    Mr. BARRETT. I think I'll start out. We're here to support the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District proposal to repair and rehabilitate its most essential wastewater conveyance infrastructure, the central metropolitan interceptor sewer system.

    This proposal includes the repair and replacement of 36 miles of pipeline and 700 manholes constructed between 1885 and 1925. These ancient pipelines, many made of brick and sometimes wood, carry 60 percent of the wastewater flow. The system is located in the oldest section of Milwaukee, which is also the downtown central business district. Also the area is located at the confluence of three major rivers, the Milwaukee, Monamine, and the Kinnickinnic, at the point of discharge into Lake Michigan, the main source of drinking water for the Milwaukee area.
 Page 572       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The timing of the project is critical. The sewers are in a state of constant surcharge, and have been for many years. It is a technical engineering challenge to evaluate, investigate, and rehabilitate this sewer system. The first challenge was to locate a place to divert wastewater to allow both investigation and construction. A diversion option was not available until the completion of the in-line storage system in 1994.

    The second challenge is the dewatering of the pipelines, which could result in collapse and other structural damage to the sewers. Because of these dangers, this project calls for extraordinary state-of-the-art investigation techniques such as sonar, ground penetrating radar, seismic imaging, underwater inspection, and wall core extraction.

    These techniques only recent being applied to sewer investigation could serve as a national demonstration project.

    I would like to share a brief story with you that I think will highlight the urgency of the needed changes. Recently during a routine system check, sewer workers in Milwaukee discovered a life-threatening situation where the sewer system is located. A sewer had collapsed, causing the soil above the collapse to be washed away. The road above the collapse was literally suspended in midair with the asphalt and concrete holding itself up. The section of road happened to be directly in front of the Miller Brewing Company facility, where hundreds of trucks come and go each day. It was only a matter of luck that one of these trucks hadn't crashed through the pavement into the large hole in the ground caused by the decrepit sewer system which would have resulted in thousands of Americans not having beer. [Laughter.]

 Page 573       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    That section of the sewer system and the road were repaired before any serious injuries had occurred. It is only a matter of time before similar situations arise. Cave-ins or collapse could result in injury, death, property damage, and sewer service disruption.

    The danger posed to roads and motorists isn't the only danger. A faulty sewer system poses dangerous health and environmental hazards as well. Because of its proximity to Lake Michigan, the deteriorating sewer system poses a threat of contamination to Milwaukee's drinking water.

    In conclusion, both Congressman Kleczka and I are here to underscore the severity of the situation. The dangers are real and the problem needs to be addressed. We hope this committee agrees with us that the MMSD needs assistance to ensure that the Milwaukee has a safe and environmentally sound sewer system.

    Thank you.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [presiding]. Thank you.

    Mr. KLECZKA. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be here before the Subcommittee to emphasize the importance of Federal assistance in rehabilitating the central metropolitan interceptor system in Milwaukee.

    My colleague, Tom Barrett, has already explained the severe ramifications that may occur if the central metropolitan interceptor system, or MIS, is not reconstructed in a timely manner. I would like to talk about the financial aspects of this project.
 Page 574       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The total cost of the MIS system reconditioning is estimated to be $238 million over a 10-year period with the Fiscal Year 1999 cost totaling $46 million. We are here seeking a 50 percent match, or $23 million, in Fiscal Year 1999 from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants program to move forward with this critical project.

    The metropolitan sewerage district's share will be financed through a loan from the Wisconsin Clean Water Fund, 70 percent of which are State contributions. Repayment will be made through revenue received from Milwaukee area ratepayers. Furthermore, the loan from the Clean Water Fund will consist only of State contributions—meaning the sewerage district's share of the cost will be financed exclusive with State and local funds.

    Repairing the MIS is also critical to preserving past investments by the sewerage district. Milwaukee recently completed the in-line storage system—a rainwater overflow storage system—at a cost of $2.1 billion. Seventy-eight percent of these funds came from State and local authorities, which increased tax rates by as much as 600 percent. A catastrophic failure of the MIS would prevent sewage from being conveyed to the in-line facility, thereby canceling its usefulness and wasting the enormous financial investment by the Milwaukee citizenry.

    As Mr. Barrett points out, devastating sewer failures threaten the public health and welfare, but they also have serious financial implications. A failure of a twenty-foot section of sewer in downtown Milwaukee in 1990 cost the sewerage district $1.5 million in emergency funds. The repairs to the sewer took over nine months to complete, disrupting area businesses and adjacent utilities. Clearly, it is financially prudent to attend to the MIS before it collapses so that local ratepayers will not have to pay for emergency repairs to the tune or $1.5 million for twenty feet of pipeline. Remember there are thirty-six miles of sewer in disrepair.
 Page 575       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Finally, Milwaukee area residents continue to pay an additional $60 a year, or 30 percent more than the national average, for wastewater conveyance and treatment. Rehabilitation of the Central MIS will ensure that rates will not go higher.

    We hope we have relayed the critical need for the funding for this project. I want to thank the committee for its time and consideration.

    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Kleczka, we appreciate very much your being here. Jerry, your testimony is very helpful.

    Mr. KLECZKA. I wasn't brief. You were just in the other room.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Price?

    Mr. PRICE. No questions, but thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks, Jerry.

    [The information follows:]

    
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.
 Page 576       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. LEWIS. If you would like to address the Committee, Mr. Pallone, you have approximately 30 seconds, can you summarize your remarks.

    Mr. PALLONE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. And your entire statement will be included in the record and we know all of your view on these issues and we appreciate your voting for our bill once in a while.

    Mr. PALLONE. Thank you very much. Do you want me to say anything?

    Mr. LEWIS. Please.

    Mr. PALLONE. The sediment decontamination study, which you have so generously supported and provided funding for in the past, we'd like to see that continued to the point now where we have a full-scale processing facility up and running in the Port of New York-New Jersey area. And, also, we'd like to change the nature of this now so that the emphasis is on basically the end product, and marketing, and putting together private/public partnerships so we can sell the end product.
 Page 577       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    That's all I am going to say. I'm looking for $5 million for that. You have generously supported us in the past. My colleague from New Jersey will be, I think, particularly supportive of the idea that we consider broadening the program to include some of our New Jersey institutions. All of the work has been done in New York; we'd like to see some of it done at Rutgers, the Stevens Institute, and NJIT.

    The helicopter, the President put $300,000 in for the helicopter that monitors ocean water quality. I would like to see that in the bill. The EPA Region II labs in Edison are in need of substantial upgrading; I talked about this in the past. We would like to see $3 million in that building and facilities account for formal construction of a design plan because it is really old and out of date. If you would look into that, I would appreciate it.

    A couple of general things: Clean lakes, I'm not sure that you are aware of the fact that—I know that you suggested to us that we fund the Clean Lakes Program where there hasn't been any money in the last few years by using, I guess it's the Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. That hasn't really worked out; most of the money isn't being used for the Clean Lakes Program and the lakes that required this project in the past are now not eligible, or the EPA is not letting us use the section 319 nonpoint source fund.

    Mr. LEWIS. Correct. I would think that if you'd address yourself very carefully and specifically to the director to EPA, you might help us get her attention.

    Mr. PALLONE. Well, I'll try, but I would still like to see if there was some way to get some money into the clean lakes fund itself. Because, I mean, that would be preferable.
 Page 578       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    And, then, again, I support the President's budget request with regards to clean water and the nonpoint source pollution testing here as well. And also the Superfund, he's requested $2.1 billion for that, that would make it possible to do a lot more superfund cleanup in New Jersey and elsewhere and I would hope that you would support that as well as the EPA's request on Brownfields.

    Again, I know that this is a lot of money but these things really go far. You know my committee, the Commerce Committee, is looking at Superfund for reauthorization but I don't think anything is going to happen this year, so just because that hasn't happened doesn't mean we shouldn't try to continue with the current program and do more cleanup.

    Mr. LEWIS. We are looking at the authorizing committees to do their work as I ask continually, but in the meantime, we have a strong voice here who is looking out for your interests, Mr. Pallone, and we appreciate your being with us. And, as I indicated, your entire statement will be in the record and good luck.

    Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
 Page 579       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

WITNESS

HON. CHRIS SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. LEWIS. Is Lindsey on his way? Okay. Well, his testimony has already been taken.

    You can summarize your testimony. Brevity counts in the committee.

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Basically what I'm asking for, Mr. Chairman, is an additional increase in the money for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    The President has requested a $10 million cut in the ATSDR. That would cripple some of the ongoing programs. This committee was very helpful in ensuring a cancer study in Toms River, a three-year study.

    We have an enormous amount of autism cases, regrettably, showing up in a place called Brick; a sevenfold increase over what would be expected in other areas. And we've met with the ATSDR people; they think it is very significant. They have already begun to put together programs to undertake a study there. They've allocated $150,000, but it will take much more than that. But if the $10 million cut goes through we may have to kiss that good-bye, and that would be a tragedy. Like I said sevenfold increase, it leads the other places in autism.

 Page 580       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We have, as Rob knows so well, and as you know, Mr. Chairman, more toxic waste dumps than anywhere else in the country.

    Mr. LEWIS. I know you do.

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. We have over 100 on the in-field site or registry. All told, my parents and my wife's parents died of cancer, leukemia. My father-in-law worked for duPont and he died of leukemia. We know that there is an environmental linkage the ATSDR is very helpful in trying to weed out fact from fiction, and New Jersey would be a great beneficiary of this, as would be the other chemical or oil-refining States. So I do hope that you would consider going up to $80 million from the current $74 million and absolutely reject a cut of $10 million as proposed by the President.

    I have just one other thing in my testimony. I am Vice Chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I've been doing a great deal of research on those veterans who have been adversely affected and ought to get presumptive disability because of cold-weather injuries. These are mostly the Korean War vets, and a number of the guys never got recompense or any kind of service-connected disability payments from the VA. We're asking for a $1 million study. I have a bill that would provide full coverage on a presumptive disability basis. VA comes back and says, ''Study it.'' It's studied. So we're asking you if you would help with the study to lay out all the details.

    Mr. LEWIS. If you'd help us as well with the authorization process.

 Page 581       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sure.

    Mr. LEWIS. Take a look at VISN and VERA and otherwise help us solve these problems, it would be much appreciated.

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Okay.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. I appreciate your being with us.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. JERRY WELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

 Page 582       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Weller.

    I called Dr. Coburn to get him over here because nobody was showing up so he cut into your time so kindly summarize your statement for the record, you know how we are around here.

    Mr. WELLER. I will, Mr. Chairman. Actually there's an elevator over in the Longworth Building I thought of the movie Groundhog Day. I got it in, it went up, and we finally kept going back to where we started. I'll have to talk to whoever is in charge over there and get that fixed.

    Mr. Chairman, you know I've spoken to you personally about this, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee in requesting $10 million for what is nicknamed ''Deep Tunnel'' in the Chicago area, but it's the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, TARP, that is an important environmental initiative. There are sixteen miles of an unfinished portion of this project which the taxpayers at a local, State, and Federal level have invested over $201 billion.

    The reason that this project is so particularly important, not only does it provide flood relief to almost half a million homeowners, including 131,000 homeowners in suburbs that I represent as well as in Representative Jackson's district. But also, it protects the drinking water in the Chicago area. Primarily in the City of Chicago and the suburban area, the City of Chicago and the suburbs gather their water from Lake Michigan and of course when there is a storm, there is always the risk that raw sewage and storm water runoff will go into Lake Michigan. This is a very important initiative to complete our desire to implement the Clean Water Act.
 Page 583       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I have Jim Giglio, who is a Thornton Township Trustee, and is also the flood control chairman for the village of South Holland, one of the primary communities that it benefits.

    I'd like to ask the commissioner if he'd say a few words from the local perspective.

    Mr. LEWIS. Welcome, Mr. Giglio. Any comments that you have will be made a part of the record. We emphasized to Jerry that brevity is here. He talks to me all day on the floor about this project. So please proceed.

    Mr. GIGLIO. I'll keep my comments brief. I'd like thank you for this opportunity to talk to you, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee, about this crucial community issue.

    My testimony will support Congressman Weller's about the absolute importance of completing the Thornton Township, the TARP Torrence Leg, and the Thorn Creek Diversion Tunnel to provide the flood relief the south suburbs so desperately needed.

    As Chairman of the South Holland Flood Committee, I have experienced firsthand the strife and hardship that homeowners living in flood zones endure sometimes as frequently as twice a year.

    As a child, I grew up on the Little Calumet River but the flooding at that point was an adventure for me. I thought it was kind of unique and fun. But my experience never included the inundation of the flood waters into my home, the experience was though that I got to help my neighbors whose homes were ruined, furniture, carpeting, mementoes such as photographs and personal items.
 Page 584       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Part of that experience was one of the reasons Mayor Don DeGraff appointed me as chairman of the Flood Committee. I have worked with Congressman Weller, retired Congressman Myers, and MWRD, and many local administrators in trying to complete this project.

    Our efforts have been twofold: we're trying to alleviate the impact and devastation that flooding causes, but we are also trying to protect our drinking water, and that's by allowing the sewerage to be held somewhere instead of dumped into Lake Michigan, which is our main source of drinking water.

    Also today I have some letters with me from homeowners that live in the flood zone and we brought some copies for each of you. And these letters are from residents who are repeatedly inundated with floodwater. Many of them have lived in South Holland most of their lives and wish to continue living there, but they see no recourse, no reason to stay, if we can't offer them flood relief. They have continued to receive higher insurance premiums, their property bills have fallen, they've received no property tax relief, and there is really nothing keeping them there if we can't offer them floor relief.

    There have been no programs or projects to offer them a buy out of their homes. So they have a home that has devaluated greatly and they see no answer on the horizon except for these project.

    So today I would like to thank you again for this opportunity to testify.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Giglio. We appreciate it. Those letters will be made part of our files. I want to make sure you have an opportunity to respond if you wanted, Congressman?
 Page 585       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. WELLER. Well, I just ask that they be submitted as part of the record. There are approximately 531,000 homeowners in the district I represent, roughly half-a-million homeowners on the South Side of Chicago and all the south suburbs and this is the unfinished portion of the project that this committee has invested about $33 million just over the last four years so we do ask if you can give another $10 million for the cause.

    Mr. LEWIS. We'll include those letters in the packet for certain and in the meantime I'll make certain you have access if you wish.

    Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

WITNESSES

HON. TOM COBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

 Page 586       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    Mr. LEWIS. Whatever testimony you might give, if you'd like only for it to appear in the record it will be and from there we're just anxious to hear your comments.

    Mr. COBURN. Let me just start. First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you. You guys did a great job last year by the vote that came across on your bill, 360 or 270, which probably had almost the highest of any Appropriations subcommittee. We wanted to just talk about a few areas that we were interested in in terms of total spending and also some priorities. Lindsey is going to talk about one in particular, but I wanted to mention a couple.

    If you look on the website on the funding for HOPWA, which is Housing for People with AIDS, there's no question we support that; the question is should there be an increase given how some of the money is spent. And if you will look at ACT-UP sites and some of the other sites, you'll see a large portion of that money is not being spent on housing for people with AIDS, it's being spent on administration, large salaries, flying to D.C. to lobby for it, and I think that before any increase in that it should be stated again that we ought to have some very strict guidelines on what that money can be used for coming out of your committee.

    Last year the Section 8 was the big jump in housing, which we all agreed to; we passed authorizing legislation to do that. We would want to see some real restraint in terms of increases in those funds since we did such a large jump last year.

 Page 587       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Let me stop you right here and just mention this. It is a very important item for both of you gentlemen to discuss with our colleagues.

    As you know, we had a surge in Section 8 reserves this last year that are a reflection of moneys that will have to be available if we are going to meet the challenge of contract renewals, which are about to take place in the coming fiscal year.

    If we move into 1999 without funds for those contract renewals, literally contracts will be cut off and we are going to find people suddenly in areas that are affected probably without places to live and that literally could be in the streets.

    Under those circumstances, you've got a very, very volatile political situation, and as you know, we tapped all those reserves by way of the offset for programs in the supplemental. How we work our way through that is a very important question and is not a light political question.

    Mr. COBURN. Well, I would just commit to you I would be willing to work with you to try to solve the problem. We don't want anybody to lose their housing or their housing benefitted, but it doesn't mean that we need—we understand how that will kick through, and we will work with you, but on a trim line, is what we are talking about. Once we set this trim line, once we give the big bump with the new authorization, then we ought to be able to plan this year and years out, to make sure that we don't jump ahead of that and that those dollars are efficient.

    And a final thing, and I know that you are in a hurry. The EPA, Ms. Browner worked with Senator Inhofe in the Senate in terms of 2.5 particulate matter studies. I am on both committees and both subcommittees that evaluated that data, both on the Commerce and Science Committees; it is less than good data. They have agreed with Senator Inhofe to pay for monitoring in the major cities.
 Page 588       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We already have some monitoring in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it disputes what the EPA says. So, the fact is they have language in there to delay implementation of the penalization for ozone standard of six years and nine years on the 2.5.

    The reason that is important is because we are beginning to think we don't know right now what the truth is and we ought to collect the data to know what we are doing on a finite basis and that has not been done anywhere in the country. The idea is good. We all want to include the quality of the air; 2.5 micron data, there is a lot we don't know about. We need to get that information before we start enforcing.

    Mr. LEWIS. And this is language that is where?

    Mr. COBURN. It's in the Senate bill. Administrator Browner has concurred in the Senate——

    Mr. LEWIS. It's in the authorization bill?

    Mr. COBURN. I think it's in the authorization bill and they are going to be working to have it in the appropriation bill as well.

    Mr. LEWIS. We'll look for it very carefully.

    Mr. COBURN. And then the final thing that I would bring forth, is we ought to be working with compliance rather than penalty. We ought to help people do a better job and our emphasis ought to be let's go help them do it right, rather than plan to do this so we take taxpayers' money in the local area and penalize them rather than use that same money to give us better quality air and better quality of life.
 Page 589       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Good. Okay. Mr. Graham.

    Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your being here.

    Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much. And to the point, AmeriCorps developed the political philosophy, I think there's some objective data out there showing that the program is not really working the way it was designed and that the projected cost of $6.43 per hour for each AmeriCorps participant is actually $15.55 an hour for a volunteer. That is pretty good pay. You can't get it in my district. Forty-two percent of the young people from 15 to 24 make less than AmeriCorps volunteers.

    An independent audit has found Americorps volunteers at political rallies, handing out political campaign literature. There is no evidence that it is going to offset college expenses. The program I think under any objective analysis, is not doing too well.

    The point I'm trying to make, whether you like or not, are for Americorps or not, in 1997, Mr. Tiahrt had an amendment to zero out the program and it passed on voice vote. In 1998, an amendment passed by voice vote to reduce the appropriation in half and what happened last year was a good thing. I really think it was a good thing; we got 300 and something-plus votes and I was one of them.

    And the process on the floor that Tom and others engaged in of having amendments to say this is where the House is at was a good exercise; it made us all feel better. And I would suggest to this subcommittee that the House, on this issue, is at zero or substantially less than the Administration wants. Whether you like the program or not, and if the Subcommittee and Committee report out a bill that mirrors the world of the House and we have an amendment on the floor, that amendment should be to offer an alternative and let us vote on it.
 Page 590       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    I just ask the Subcommittee to remember the 1997/1998 vote. Report out a bill that I think is close to the objective fact, and close to where the House is and change the dynamic that happened last year and there will be a lot of good will generated and let's have a vote on the NEA or Americorp on the floor. I would hope the Committee would listen to some of the votes we had last year.

    Mr. LEWIS. I think you folks know that in the past the committee has taken specific actions on the floor. One year I remember an amendment that I offered that related to veterans' benefits. Strange things happen when we get to conference——

    Mr. GRAHAM. We understand that you can't win every fight and I know the Senate has a different view, but the rule of the House is pretty clear when two amendments are passed by voice vote to zero out a program and cut in half. I think that is where the House is a body as Republicans and Democrats, and not unanimously. We just ask that the Committee reflect and when you get to conference, do the best you can.

    Mr. LEWIS. One other item I'd like to mention to the two of you, especially, for you've been very thoughtful about some of these subjects.

    In many ways it would be helpful if people like you were on the Appropriations Committee so you could see the process from the other end. Eighty-five percent of our bill is not authorized. We keep saying to our authorizers, ''Please we don't want to do your work.'' Yet, if you take, for example, housing programs that involve the elderly, if you don't put language in it to involve section 202, sometimes those programs go out the door. There is a disconnect here and not an understanding in the House that we need. If you would help us pound on those authorizers——
 Page 591       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. COBURN. If I would suggest, the best way to pound on authorizers is to not appropriate anything for anything that is not authorized, and pretty soon you can say we're going to either throw out the authorizing process and you all become the authorizers as well which I'm fully for or quit spending money on something that is not authorized.

    Mr. LEWIS. I have suggested that more than once, and somewhere it just——

    Mr. COBURN. You have got to start. You have got to start and you have got to say, ''Our committee will not pass anything unless it is authorized. Now, we are going to hold up; we are going to give you a month; go get it authorized.'' If you don't—what good is it to have House rules if we continue the exception to House rules and say, ''Well, sorry, we are going to——''

    Mr. LEWIS. I think you have noted with care people wringing their hands and saying how come these guys are authorizing and yet the authorizing never quite get there. We have that frustration and we want you to know we are frustrated by it.

    Mr. COBURN. The way to eliminate it is do not fund one thing that is not authorized, and I guarantee you it will get authorized very quickly.

    Mr. GRAHAM. May I make a suggestion along those lines? If you are looking for a database to find out how the House feels even though it is not going to the Authorization Committee, we have taken a series of votes over several years like AmeriCorps that pretty well shows that the House position on AmeriCorps is near zero. That is a form of authorization even though it is not the proper form, so there is a database out there. If you look at that database, I think we will have a good year.
 Page 592       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, Mr. Price?

    Mr. PRICE. All right. I want to make sure I understand what you are saying or what you are asking the Committee to do about AmeriCorps. You are suggesting we report a bill that contains no funding for AmeriCorps.

    Mr. GRAHAM. In 1997, an amendment was voice voted, fiscal year 1997, voice voted where the committee accepted by voice vote an amendment to zero it out. In 1998, the appropriation's folks on the floor accepted an amendment to try to cut it by 200, cut it in half. I am saying that that to me shows that the rule of House is not very much behind this bill—I mean this program. I have got serious problems with the program, but I am just one member. I am just telling you, look at the database out there about a program like AmeriCorps and you will find where most House Members are at.

    Mr. PRICE. What are you then saying about the amendment that would be in order on the floor. I just want to make sure I understand what you are——

    Mr. GRAHAM. I would suggest that you start with zero, because I think that is where the majority of the House Members are at, but if I am wrong, allow somebody to make an amendment in order and say that we want to fund it at the Senate level so let's have a vote on it, and the problem we had last year is we felt that the committee started with the position that was pretty much contrary to the House position on most of these emotional tough programs, and you all have got the hardest beat in America. You all have got the hardest beat in Congress, I know that; a lot of emotional programs the NEA. Let's have a vote on the NEA, and if the NEA is funded, so be it; let's have a vote, but I think the committee should reflect pretty much where the votes have been.
 Page 593       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We do not have that one.

    Mr. GRAHAM. I know. Well, okay.

    Mr. LEWIS. We do not want that one. [Laughter.]

    Mr. GRAHAM. I was see from the example, but AmeriCorps is something similar but not quite as emotional. I would think that I would hope the Committee would see that the House is not overly enamored with this program. Start up with a markup to reflect that position and allow somebody who is a supporter of the program come on and say we need more money, and let's have an honest debate out on the floor.

    Mr. PRICE. You are aware, though, that bringing a Member to the floor to add something does require offsets normally. Heavy burden of proof on adding something to a bill; much less a burden of proof on deleting something. So, if you do not like AmeriCorps, why not shift the burden of proof?

    Mr. GRAHAM. Well, just when the Committee will accept the voice vote to zero it out, there is a disconnect between what the Committee does and what the Members want.

    Mr. COBURN. The other thing is does it have full authorization, AmeriCorps? Is it an authorized program?

 Page 594       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. GRAHAM. No.

    Mr. COBURN. It has never achieved authorization, so that tells us something to begin with.

    Mr. PRICE. If you apply that standard to programs under our jurisdiction, I am afraid you are in for slim pickings.

    Mr. COBURN. I am ready to do that, and I am ready to help you all enforce that.

    Mr. PRICE. Although, you will not find disagreement, I think, on this committee, because of our ability of having timely authorizations.

    Mr. GRAHAM. You all have a tough job, I fully realize that.

    Mr. COBURN. I guess one of the things that would help your job is if people want to put programs that are not authorized into spending bills, make them do it where they have to talk about it to the American public and have to explain it.

    Mr. LEWIS. I agree.

    Mr. COBURN. So, the best way to purify a process and add integrity to the rules that we already have is to start following the rules. If they want to add AmeriCorps back, let them add it on the floor; it may pass. Big deal, then that is the will of the House. That is a form of authorization, but to put it in a committee when it has not been authorized by the committee that has jurisdiction over it, totally precludes and ignores and the rules that we have set under which we are going to authorize, and we cannot ask other people to continue to follow the rules of the House when we all ignore the rules of the House.
 Page 595       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your testimony; appreciate it.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. NICK LAMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Nick Lampson. Your entire testimony will be included in the record, Nick, and if you want to summarize it——

    Mr. LAMPSON. It will be very short, yes.

    Mr. LEWIS. I want your guests to know that I am not going to be leaving because I do not want to hear all of your testimony but because Mary Bono is a new Member of the House, and I have got to introduce her at a luncheon meeting, but my friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen is going to take over for me in a very able way.

 Page 596       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LAMPSON. This is about the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. It is a consortium of universities located throughout the South, and all these gentlemen are representatives who have participated in the——

    Mr. LEWIS. Welcome to the committee, gentlemen.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. We are going to request continued line-item funding in the amount of $2.5 million for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center. It is, again, a university-based consortium. The center carries out a program of peer-reviewed research evaluation, testing, and development and demonstration of alternative innovative technologies that may be used in minimization, destruction, or handling of hazardous wastes associated with petroleum chemical and other Gulf Coast industries. We seek better protection of human health in the environment.

    Since the establishment in 1998, the Center sought to build a 300 multi-year project with more than 200 different principal investigators; approximately 400 graduate students at the affiliated universities. There have been over 600 publication, species, technical presentations, and it has been extremely successful in leveraging additional—outside of research—support for projects recently funded through the Center through Federal, State, or industrial resource grants.

    The Center has gained recognition through the U.S. as one of the major university environmental research centers. The major category areas of research: waste minimization by technology inventions and modifications; emerging technologies and remediation and waste treatment. The major areas of technology research include biological mediation, soils and sludge treatment, separations, hazardous substance, monitoring and detecting combustion oxidations pollution prevention in modeling and risk management. Projects from this center have received national awards from the EPA which is a presidential chemistry challenge award, the State of Texas Governor's Award.
 Page 597       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    The Center's technology transfer programs were designed to bring technology for a cleaner environment out of the laboratory into the fields as practical application. As a component of the technology transfer program, the Center operates the Gulf Coast Environment Library as a service to academic and non-academic public. The center provides the coordination of the activities of the research consortium of the Texas A&M University system, the University of Texas, Rice University, University of Houston, Lemar University, the Louisiana State University, Mississippi State University, University of Alabama, and the University of Central Florida. The centers enters into research agreements with private research organizations and industry.

    I would like to introduce the Center director, Jack Hopper, down here at the very end. Dr. Hopper is from the north, located at Lemar University, and then the other representatives are Mr. George Talbert who is the assistant director for Technology Transfer——

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [presiding]. Thank you for being here.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Bill Batchelor; Dr. Batchelor is at the Texas A&M University; Dr. Manoj Chopra of the University of Central Florida; Dr. Dennis Clifford, University of Houston; Dr. Richard Corsi, University of Texas; Dr. David Cocke from Lemar University; Dr. David Constant of Louisiana State University; Mason Tomson of Rice University, and Dr. Allen Ford, who is the former center director.

    So, I want to thank you for your time, and if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. I, again, request that the Subcommittee provide continued support for funding for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center at the level that we have been funding at, at $2.5 million per year, and we thank you very much.
 Page 598       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to thank you very much for your testimony and for your leadership on this project. I know Mr. Price and I and Chairman Lewis recognize your work and dedication and that fact that you have walked such a large amount of hired talent to sit behind you, I think that is weighed to your case substantially.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Well, thank you. We really believe in this, and it something that seems to be very specific to the Gulf Coast, and that is why it is nice to have representatives from every area along the Gulf Coast where this kind of chemical activity is involved.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you. Mr. Price?

    Mr. PRICE. Of all the Members we have heard from today, I would say you are the best backed up. [Laughter.]

    That is quite a chorus behind you. What is the history of this line-item in terms of recent funding—recent years of funding?

    Mr. LAMPSON. I think it was funded at for $2.5 million.

    Mr. PRICE. For what period of time?

    Mr. HOPPER. From the very beginning.

 Page 599       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. LAMPSON. From the very beginning, 1988, so this will be the 10th year at that level. It has some pretty significant accomplishments to talk about.

    Mr. HOPPER. Authorization was for $5 million per year.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If you would be good enough to give your name for the record, so the reporter can have it.

    Mr. HOPPER. My name is Dr. Jack Hopper. I am the director of the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. H-o-p-p-e-r?

    Mr. HOPPER. H-o-p-p-e-r, right, like grass. [Laughter.]

    This Center was originally authorized for $5 million; it has been appropriated $2.5 million each of those years.

    Mr. PRICE. All right; a 10-year history of funding at that $2.5 million level.

    Mr. LAMPSON. We would love to have it twice. We think that that would be a most appropriate thing to have.

    Mr. PRICE. All right, and the number of institutions involved here is——
 Page 600       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. HOPPER. Nine universities involved. There is nine in the State of Texas and then LSU, Mississippi State, University of Alabama, University of Central Florida.

    Mr. PRICE. And you are based at Lamar.

    Mr. HOPPER. I am based at Lamar University.

    Mr. PRICE. And that is the center of the——

    Mr. HOPPER. That is where the staff is, the organization, but all the research is carried out at these other all nine universities.

    Mr. PRICE. All right. Well, we appreciate your bringing this distinguished group here today. We will look at this request very carefully.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Price. Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here. The Committee stands in recess until three o'clock.

    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you very much.

    [Recess.]

    [The information follows:]
 Page 601       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Ms. Hooley, step right up. Your entire testimony, I have been heard to say, will be included in the record.

    Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. And if you can summarize the highlights for us, we would appreciate that, and most important is relative ease to money.

    Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My mom did not raise any dummies. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just talk very briefly about one particular project you have, I think, was turned in a list of the projects that I am asking for.

    The first one is a very innovative project that is in my district. It is a $16 million project. We have lots of partners in this project. It is to treat wastewater for city water for the fund of the city. It is also a demonstration project. It deals with wetlands and to clean the water. It is going to be a horticulture center, so it is an educational place as well as a tourist attraction, so it has all of these partners that work together. EPA has been very helpful. Again, it is a $16 million project. We have $15 million; we are asking for $1 million for this project.
 Page 602       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Fifteen million and you are asking for $1 million?

    Ms. HOOLEY. Yes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Out of $16 million. That is reasonable.

    Ms. HOOLEY. Is that not good? I think that is very good.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is. If you will notice her pen. She got that from Norway, no?

    Ms. HOOLEY. Yes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Norway is good, I heard about Norway.

    Mr. STOKES. Oh, yes. [Laughter.]

    Ms. HOOLEY. The second project, again, is to finish up a start of a project and that is the completion of an environmental computer center at Oregon State University. They have all the super computers on the first floor. They have not been able to complete the project which is two additional floors where the students would work in all the labs, and they have got all these computers on the first floor, super conductor computers. It is for the ocean and atmospheric science programs. We are asking for $2 million. It would complete the project to add two additional stories onto the building. So the $2 million——
 Page 603       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, so it is a construction project.

    Ms. HOOLEY. It is a construction project; the $2 million completes that project.

    Mr. LEWIS. Once we have completed that project how do we feed the cow? How do you pay for it? Is it taken out of the ongoing budget?

    Ms. HOOLEY. It will be taken out of the ongoing budget. It is a matter of trying to get all of it in one place.

    Mr. LEWIS. All right, thank you.

    Ms. HOOLEY. The third is a $1.2 million request, and it is also funded through EPA, and this is to address water issues along the coast. It is to measure the currents, and it helps with navigation down the Columbia River. It is a research program, and it is called the Marine Environmental Research and Training Station, and it does forecasting for tides, and that again is $1.2 million.

    And then the other two programs are national programs. I just want you to know I am very supportive of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant that is in the President's budget at $2.9 billion. Please do not count that toward my request. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. She is smart.
 Page 604       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Ms. HOOLEY. The other is in the President's budget, and that is non-point source control monitoring program at $200 million, and I hope you would keep both of those.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Ms. HOOLEY. That is it.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your input, Congresswoman Hooley.

    Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you very, very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is our pleasure to work with you.

    Ms. HOOLEY. And if you have any questions——

    Mr. LEWIS. Is this your first appearance before this subcommittee?

    Ms. HOOLEY. This is, yes, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. So, is the last year that Congressman Stokes will be with us, and he has made a fabulous contribution to this committee over the years. He is my chairman, and we are dear friends, and I am proud to say that.
 Page 605       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to commend her for her first appearance. She did an excellent job.

    Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, thanks.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

WITNESS

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. LEWIS. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Good afternoon.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good afternoon. How are you, young lady?

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. All right. I think I am fine, and when I leave, I hope I will even be better. [Laughter.]
 Page 606       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. All of your testimony will be in the record.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you. There are two projects for which I am coming to make an explanation and request for. One, is for the Veterans' Administration facility which was authorized in 1996, but it was not funded. It has been reauthorized this year. It is a psychiatric facility that needs to be upgraded. I used to work there, and I had to organize—I had to open the first unit of it back in the fifties, and it has not had any upgrading, and what we have done there is open a day treatment center and a day hospital that were open and old living quarters of physicians and nurses from the thirties, and that is where they still are. And it is hard to have a secured area to walk patients a mile away on the premises—not really quite a mile, but I think it is three-quarters of a mile—without having supervision, because the premises are so scattered, and so they are asking for $24 million to upgrade that and bring it together. They are known for their service. We have one of the largest and I think more efficient Veterans' Administration's medical centers in the country that takes in the whole north Texas area where Sam Rayburn use to be, and so that is one.

    And then the other——

    Mr. LEWIS. Before you go on to the other one, is this project in the President's budget? I mean, did they request if from the Department or has it been authorized by the Committee?

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. It has been authorized by the Committee.
 Page 607       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. But the other end of it, they have not responded yet?

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Right. I have spoken—the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs currently is aware of it, and they say——

    Mr. LEWIS. The new Secretary?

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. The new Secretary. As soon as he is confirmed, he has promised to go and look at the facility.

    Mr. LEWIS. Would you tell him for Louis Stokes and I that we want to know what he thinks about this facility. Tell him we said that.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Okay.

    Mr. STOKES. Very good, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I will, indeed.

    Mr. LEWIS. He is a good guy.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, but it has been so long, and it really is pretty antiquated facilities there, but they have done a good job. I do not know if you know that much about the Veterans and the way it works, but Waco, which is about 87 miles south of there, had the psychiatric unit which had about 2,500 beds, all psychiatric. It got to be that all of this pretty just tonic housekeeping of holding people because of its location and holding staff. In Dallas, we opened up the acute area there. It was closely associated with the medical school in Dallas, and they do quite a bit of research on schizophrenia there, and so the facilities to put people back in the community, way back when we first started, people stayed; it was just like home, and they did not get discharged, and now they are trying to move them out, and it takes a lot of training at the training facilities at the treatment center where they have on-the-job training. And the day hospital is after they leave and not come to the facility everyday but need some supportive therapy along the way, and that is where they use the old dormitories, and it is pretty antiquated.
 Page 608       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, I thank you for that. Go right ahead.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. And the other one is probably—and this is all in the same section of the town which is for the most part—the core of it is in my district; some of it is Jeff Session's and some of it is in Martin Frost's, but this is the southern end of Dallas County. There was a recent study done that talked about two different cities in one: the north end of Dallas and the southern end of Dallas. The salaries in the southern end is 60 percent less than the northern end. Most development has taken part in the northern end. So, right now, there is a real thrust; the only land left undeveloped is available in that southern sector.

    Our business leaders, as of yesterday, eight of the banks have put together a $2.1 billion package of loans for helping to establish businesses; brownfield initiative's been going. They are asking for $2.1 billion, I believe, to further fill in some of the gaps—$2.5 million to fill in some of the gaps to help get this going, but there is a real—we call it the global strategy to put together work force training.

    We have 3 percent unemployment in that area. The jobs are there. They are high tech; they are very high tech now. The people who cannot meet the qualifications for the most part live in this area. We have just started to develop some training in that area. Our companies of Dallas have a tremendous involvement in the businesses there. Texas Instruments and EDS, all of the various companies have come together to support some of this development, and we need this money to supplement some of the dollars and matched dollars that have been committed from the private sector to help with this new thrust. The Vice President was there in October to help launch some of it. He indicated that he thought this would be a model for the country if we were able to get it done. It houses 45 percent of the city's population and 97 percent of the land is available. It is just—you know, the river, the Trinity River which we are trying to develop now kind of divides the city, and this is the southern end, and so, hopefully, we can influence you to approve it; it is not a lot.
 Page 609       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, and as we go forward with our budget allocation we will do what we can for you.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you. I know it is tight.

    Mr. LEWIS. Now, do not mention to this to Mr. Stokes privately.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Listen, this almost brings me to tears to have to accept that I have such a short time to serve with him. He is an outstanding Member. The only thing that I have ever been able to take home, he helped me get it. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen, any questions?

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. No, but when Ms. Johnson was talking about health care there, I do not know whether you know it or not, but she is—I do not know how many there are in Congress—but she is a registered nurse.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. There are two now that Ms. Capps is one.
 Page 610       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. That is right.

    Mr. STOKES. That is right; that makes two of them.

    Mr. LEWIS. Listen, I have been advocate—I do not know if you know this—but I have been advocate for well over a decade of actively, aggressively seeking women to run for Congress, but we need that louder voice, and these additions are helpful.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I tell you, California is leading the way.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for being with us.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

    Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you so much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, April 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS

 Page 611       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
WITNESS

HON. ROBERT WEYGAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

    Mr. LEWIS. Bob, come on up; it is your turn.

    Mr. WEYGAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Congressman Weygand——

    Mr. WEYGAND. It is my time up.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is your turn. Your entire statement will be included in the record.

    Mr. WEYGAND. Thank you. I will then, therefore, try to be as brief as I possibly can——

    Mr. LEWIS. You can do that.

    Mr. WEYGAND [continuing]. Which I know you would love to have.

    Mr. LEWIS. That is exactly right; that is perfect.

    Mr. WEYGAND. We are very, first of all, very thankful that you are having a hearing on this. We think that the VA and HUD bill is extremely important. Rhode Island, as you know, is a very small State; only 1 million people and there is only two representatives in the State.
 Page 612       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. And they are you and——

    Mr. WEYGAND. Patrick Kennedy.

    Mr. LEWIS. Patrick Kennedy.

    Mr. WEYGAND. On the Senate side, Jack Reed and John Kerry.

    Mr. LEWIS. Is Providence in your district?

    Mr. WEYGAND. We split the city.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. WEYGAND. Yes, I have the poor side and Kennedy has the wealthy side. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. You have the public housing in your district.

    Mr. WEYGAND. I have a lot of that. I have a lot of the low-income housing, and other parts of the State too, but Patrick also has some as well, but in the city of Providence, the lower income is primarily in my district.

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me mention that Louis Stokes—on another matter—and I may want to talk to both you and Patrick in the near term depending on what happens.
 Page 613       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. WEYGAND. Sure, okay; be happy to.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is not a matter for today's meeting but another time.

    Mr. WEYGAND. Speaking of that issue, though, in Providence in some of the areas that we have looked at, what has happened with the HUD bill is very, very important to us. A number of the programs that HUD presently has have been extremely helpful. For instance, the Title I Program; approximately, 96.7 percent of the housing rehab that goes on is financed in a way like that. We think that what the Secretary has been trying to do to reorganize within his department, make it a little bit more effective and efficient, is good. We also think that it is important under the present proposal that we have to strengthen some of the existing good programs that work.

    The programs I think that I would like to talk about is just a couple of them. Two of the requests of HUD, the Low-income Tax Credit Program and the FHA Loan one that are particularly of interest to us. Those two programs will mean a great deal. Changing the low-income tax credit from $1.25 to $1.75 is really going to help those areas of Providence and other areas similar to that with regard to housing. We have seen some of that already, but it will just add a lot more players into the mix and be able to put a lot more units online that, perhaps, we would not have.

    We have seen with the recovery in Rhode Island we are sandwiched between Hartford and Boston. Our economy is very much reliant upon what happens in Massachusetts and Connecticut. We came out of a very difficult banking, credit union crisis out of 1990 and 1991. I was a member of the legislature and Lieutenant Governor at the time, and we had to bail out credit unions because we had a terrible problem with that. As a result of that, housing virtually stopped and virtually stopped up until about a year and a half ago, and so the HUD programs really do provide a great vehicle to keep the housing in those areas going that we need to, and the low-income housing tax credit and raising the loan limit, as you know, right now, ranges from about $70,000 to $187,000 to one loan limit for the entire country v. 250 different loan limits. We think it would be better for us—and certainly in Rhode Island where we average around $152,000 now for the FHA loan limit—raising it up will really allow for more housing in our area.
 Page 614       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We have seen on the Banking Committee which I sit on in the Housing Subcommittee——

    Mr. LEWIS. You are on the Housing Subcommittee; I did not know that, Bob.

    Mr. WEYGAND. Yes, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. This is our authorizer.

    Mr. STOKES. That is great. [Laughter.]

    Mr. WEYGAND. Why do I feel I am being used. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. We do not want to be the authorizer.

    Mr. WEYGAND. We have seen HUD come before us on a couple of the programs, and I was critical of some of the things they were doing, and the other day we were talking about loans and we were saying that, ''You know, you do not even require a simple thing like a housing inspection; you require an appraisal.'' So, they have got a lot of things in HUD to clean up, but some of the programs that they are talking about improving are very, very good, and the tax credit and the FHA loan limit, I think, are two very, very good programs.

    A couple of things that we are not very happy about would be the consolidation of two very important programs, 202 and 811. Those section programs, to us, we would prefer to see them separated and to function. Just last year, we received $6.2 million for 3 projects or programs that came out of both of those section areas. It really made a big difference in Providence and the adjacent neighborhoods. My testimony is being submitted, too, Mr. Chairman, so I am not going to go through the rest of this.
 Page 615       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks, I appreciate it.

    Mr. WEYGAND. I would appreciate taking a closer look at 202 and 811 and the FHA loan and the tax credit. To us, in our community, in my community—and I have the poorest part of Rhode Island and the wealthiest part of Rhode Island. It makes a difference to the entire district not just to the poor section; it really does. It is an infusion of money; it is jobs; it is wages; it is vendors; it is contractors, and all of those, but more importantly in an area right now where we have housing stock that people are ignoring that we really need to rehab and to put back on the marketplace, this will help us tremendously.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate very much the testimony, Congressman Weygand. I think it is important to hear from people with your background about the significance of having programs like 202 and 811 designated separately. There are differences in our policies since, but these are fundamental policy questions that your committee ought to be dealing with that the Department is moving ahead almost without us on some of these things, and I must say that Secretary Cuomo is to be given high marks for his effort to reorganize the Department and so on, but in the meantime with a lack of policy perspective from the Congress, the people over there have their ideas about the way the world should work and certainly the Secretary cannot focus on everything, so he needs some input from the committee.

    Mr. WEYGAND. My background is one of architecture. I owned an architectural company before I got into politics, and building and housing is something I have grown up with since I was 15 years old. I cannot tell you what a difference it does make when I—I often use as a barometer of how well the economy is doing as based upon whether I see housing stocks, additions, renovations or those types of things, and it is true. While it may seem like some old kind of economics, it is true, and housing is extremely important in the old New England areas where new housing stocks and urban areas where we really need the housing effort is not there without HUD, and so I appreciate your help, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 616       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Before you leave, let me say, I have used your State for years, and I might as well let you know about it. The map is different from the territory in this business, you know, but on my wall is a picture, and there are five eastern States that sit neatly desert side of my district; your is one of them. You start at beautiful downtown Rudlins and drive 70 miles an hour and 4.5 hours later you are in Bishop, and you are still in the district, and yet the same constituency. The mix of the people is very much the same, and the problems are very similar in many ways.

    Mr. WEYGAND. I am very fortunate I have a small State, and when I was Lieutenant Governor I could rotate around the State three times in one day. My district is more concise, but it is a beautiful State that has probably the same problems as any other district. We have agriculture; I have seashore; I have low-income housing problems, and I have the wealthiest of people, and what you are doing on this will be very important to all of them. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Nice to be with you. We appreciate your coming. I did not ask members if they had questions, but he was so articulate, what questions could we have? Thank you for being with us.

    Mr. WEYGAND. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

 Page 617       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
Thursday, April 23, 1998.

AMERICORPS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

WITNESSES

HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

HON. TIM ROEMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

HON. ROBERT ANDREWS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

HON. STEVE HORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Roemer was around here a while ago, wasn't he?

    Mr. ROEMER. I am still here.

    Mr. LEWIS. There he is. Oh, I remember you. Sam, why don't you two guys come up, both of you. So Shays is the only one missing, is that right? Oh, Morella is not here either. She won't be able to make it? We will take that as an indication that she no longer supports it. [Laughter.]
 Page 618       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Tim, just so you know, I have a note here that says, ''Roemer's name should not have been in the list this morning. His office was supposed to cancel him and put him on later today.'' So, you know our conversation on the floor, I keep paying attention to you.

    Mr. ROEMER. You are all right.

    Mr. LEWIS. If I just get you to vote for my bills sometimes. [Laughter.]

    He has not voted for our bills, Louis, since you were chairman.

    Mr. ROEMER. What kind of preface is this? Does this mean you are not open to anything I am going to say? You might not want me to testify. [Laughter.]

    Connie and I both better leave.

    Mr. LEWIS. Please proceed. All of your testimony, as you might want to adjust it or otherwise, it will be included in the record, but brief remarks would be appreciated.

    Mr. FARR. I will defer to my senior member.

    Mr. ROEMER. Well, let me start off by talking about AmeriCorps since that is what, I think, Rob is going to talk about and what Sam is going to talk about and what Connie was going to talk about. I am here as a strong supporter of the AmeriCorps program. I am here to encourage you, Mr. Chairman, and our ranking member and members of the Committee to support the President's request of $500 million. I believe that this is an important program because it stresses two things: personal responsibility and community service.
 Page 619       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    We first talked about this program several years ago when the President proposed it and said that it might be able to accomplish some wonderful things. Well, in Indiana it is accomplishing some wonderful things for the environment; for the homeless; for education, and in a host of other areas. We have 19 people working on the envirocorps in the city of Elkhart cleaning up streams; cleaning up a lake; testing homes for radon gas; doing things that require more and more expertise, and focusing in on the environment.

    We have 13 individuals working at the light treatment center working on alcoholism; working on homelessness; working on training people to get out of homeless situations where we are seeing more and more families come into homeless situations, and we have—I have brag about having the best homeless center, I believe, in the country where Mr. Cisneros and now Secretary Cuomo have awarded our homeless center new funding to train people to perform the same kinds of services at other homeless centers. We have AmeriCorps working there, and, finally, we have 100 AmeriCorps people at the University of Notre Dame where they are trained in a master's program to then go out and serve in schools that have a paucity or a shortcoming in terms of the overall features in those schools. They are primarily inner city schools where the teacher population is very, very short, and these 100 students go into these schools and end up performing a lifetime service in teaching. So, in the environment and the homeless centers and education, AmeriCorps is working very, very well, and I strongly support the Committee—encourage the Committee to support the President's proposal.

    Mr. LEWIS. And Sam and Rob, Tim, has taken up most of your time allowed, and he does not vote for bills. What would you like to say? [Laughter.]

 Page 620       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. FARR. I would just like to mention sort of a personal thing both as a young kid in this country and now as a Member of Congress. I got out of college in 1963. I was not sure what I wanted to do, and there were very few alternatives in those days. I went into the Peace Corps. It had been created as a Federal program and was something that—it just changed my life, and what I realized from that—not at the time, but I think as I became a parent and became older—is that these programs, these kind of service programs, the hope for them is tremendous for this country; That we have these opportunities for youth.

    And as a Member of Congress, it appears to me, one, that I think we are all in this business of politics because we like people and we like fixing things that are broken, and we care about it. We all involved in community service. I was a delegate to the President's Conference on National Service which General Colin Powell shared a volunteer summer in Philadelphia, and what came out of that was something that I think we forget in this institution, that if we are really going to solve the hard problems in this country, the microproblems, it is going to take hands on; it is going to take a lot of people. Government program structure is not going to do it. It is going to take this personal contact. AmeriCorp is not really one of the programs that really allows you to do that, and why it gives hope as a Member of Congress is that we have AmeriCorps program in the County of Santa Cruz, and they work with the county group there, and they have a thing called the Rapid Response Corp which is for disaster relief. When we had the El Nino disaster, out of this what happened is that a man named Jim Moran—no relation to our Jim Moran—he was a homeless man. He was working in the project AmeriCorps runs, it is called the Homeless Garden Project which is an urban growing fresh fruits and vegetables. He was part of the Rapid Response Corp; he volunteered for that. He was so good at what he did in his Rapid Response that the American Red Cross honored him, and said, ''You know, we need people of your skills and your leadership.'' What he is doing now is they found him some transitional housing. He is no longer living on the street. They have got him involved in an educational program. He had his high school diploma; he is now working for a bachelor's of art. This would not have been possible without a program, and I think we lose a lot of politics here on this stuff, but we lose that kind of how important this is to individual human beings; how important it was to me to have a Peace Corp; how important it is to Jim Moran to have AmeriCorps, and I just leave you that as something that I think these programs give Americans hope, not only hope for serving but hope for solving problems.
 Page 621       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for your remarks; very poignant. Robert?

    Mr. ANDREWS. The first thing I would like to say is to say thank you for the time that you put into this. All of us are aware of the demands put on members' time and to sit here for I guess was a very long day, looking at the list, and to give us each a chance to do this, we really do appreciate it. We realize the sacrifice of time you are making and the nitty gritty non-glitzy of just what you are doing. We really do appreciate it.

    I also wanted to say that I am well aware of the fact that in the debate about national service there has really been two kinds of people. There have been people on both sides who wanted to make ideological points, and that is fine, and then there have been people who wanted to find a way to make the program work better, and I think this Subcommittee under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, has very much been in that camp, and we appreciate that.

    I wanted to give you a report as the supporter of an increase in the appropriation as to the progress that has been made which you are well aware, but I wanted to have it on the record. There have really been three things we tried to do since the—the problems in the early days of the program have been pointed out.

    The first was to bring down the overall cost of participating in the program; the second was to reduce the amount of administrative overhead in the Corporation which runs the program, and then the third thing that we have tried to do is to address the specific audit issues that have been raised over the course of the last couple of years. Senator Wofford, I think, has done an exemplary job at doing just those three things. In 1999, it appears that the cost for participants will be around $15,000 per participant or under. That is significant progress over where we were a few years ago.
 Page 622       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Second, there has been a reduction in the Corporation's administrative budget by 12 percent. There has been a cut in the National Civilian Community Corps headquarter staff by 25 percent. The campus staff has closed by 30 percent, so they really have reduced the overheads so they could increase the program.

    The third thing on the audit issues—and it is detailed in a report that I know that Senator Wofford has made to this committee—97 of the 99 audibility items that were raised in the 1986 audit have been addressed in some significant fashion. Not all of them have been resolved, but I think that is very, very significant progress, and I would just implore you to look at that record. I think it justifies the increase that I am supporting which is $76.8 million up from the fiscal year level of $425 million, and I thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Robert. Mr. Shays? Welcome.

    Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. I just also want to thank all of you for serving the way you do. I used to serve on the Appropriations Committee, and it was—I just am in awe of what you all do. I have a frustration and it is not with this committee. I know this committee has funded AmeriCorps; I know that it has done so over the objection of a good number of our members. But what frustrates me as a Republican is that, first, this is a voucher program for education. As a Peace Corp volunteer, Sam and I were given a small stipend when we were done and we could spend it on anything, but when an AmeriCorp participant is done they have to spend it on education and they want to, and I think that's something that this Congress should favor.

 Page 623       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Secondly, it is not a national program. It is a program where two-thirds, basically, is done at the State and local level, and it is to me a program designed candidly with a Republican perspective done by a Democrat administration, and they did it because they really wanted it to be bipartisan, and I think even though it didn't get the support of Republicans, we still tried to make it be that kind of program. I know they have had some problems on the audit side, and they are addressing that some of that was programs that existed before that they had to incorporate, and I think that the per unit cost even when we talk about being $16,000 this year realizing that $4,700 is the grant, $1,275 is health care—maybe they shouldn't get health care but they do, and I am content with that and the salary is a measly $9,000. Let me just finish up. I see it in my urban areas. These are kids that need a job where there is mentoring training; they get both, and when they are done, they get an education and they know they have served their country. I cannot say I would die for this program but nearly close to it. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Gentlemen, if I could respond to all of you in a way. This may just be a reflection of our frustration. I know that we are going to hear from Members who talk about the dollar figures that you are talking about, and they will come to you, Rob, and say, ''What is the average income of the average family in your home State?'' ''Does Indiana have that average income number?'' ''And this is a volunteer program,'' et cetera. I can handle those kinds of discussions, but I will never quite forget the first year I had this job, as Louis and I took this bill to the floor, and we were attempting to send messages to a number of our agencies that had not had a certain kind of oversight for a while, and especially in this case we were looking at Veterans' Affairs, where all of us know—all of us know—that VA medical care has a knee-jerk bipartisan support base and over the years we just put money out there and didn't really worry about what happened to veterans in the hospital. They have numbers on their foreheads, and they were treated not like human beings, and yet we were trying to send a message: Get your house in order; begin to readjust this. So we made some much lighter adjustments in the VA program. When we went to the poor, nobody, but nobody would hear it.
 Page 624       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    You were the greatest supporters of AmeriCorps and sat there with all of us because the amendment being produced from the Veterans' Committee was a trade-off when the AmeriCorps funding was put in VA. Frankly, in the final analysis, we took over the amendment and did it ourselves because it was obvious that the House was going to do it. But there was no base out there to support.

    The following year I just about lost my head when I voted for a minor little amendment, but for my chairman, where he was trying to put money back in AmeriCorps. Well, one way or another, we have to do a better job of this than lose our heads in the process and I'm just frustrated by it and I want you to know that. I appreciate very much the testimony. I appreciate those of you who worked for our bill as well.

    Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just for my own part, I would certainly enlist as a volunteer in any effort to whip and work an amendment that would raise these issues. I understand that's my reciprocal obligation to you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. I just want to say that this issue—these are three of probably the most articulate spokespersons in the House, and obviously know this issue extremely well and from their own personal knowledge. I think we understand your viewpoint. The Chairman, I think, has been clearly supportive in this area.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I echo Mr. Stokes' sentiment, as well.
 Page 625       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. SHAYS. Could I just point out that I also submitted items this morning in support of HOPWA and brownfields. Your brownfields legislation has done more good in urban areas than any other program I have seen in the urban areas.

    Mr. LEWIS. We have not received our budget allocations yet, but it is our position to move forward as though we've seen them. We can allocate proportionately a lot of things but the programs that you are interested in are going to receive significant levels of support.

    Mr. STOKES. Ms. Nancy Pelosi did an excellent job on the HOPWA issue.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being here. Thank you all.

    Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Chairman.

    Mr. FARR. Yes. I have one issue and you understand it. What's happening in California is that we have closed military bases, and in fact, Mr. Stokes' former base, Fort Ord, is closed. They want to build a veterans' cemetery there, and the VA doesn't want anymore veterans' cemeteries.

    What you can have is the partnership of the States, and Senator Bruce McPherson, a Republican, is offering a bill in the State legislation. There is a request to put $10 million into the State cemetery. It's a program we—they essentially are veterans' cemeteries run by the States. We put some Federal money in for startup, but then the costs are borne by the State. We need this at Ft. Ord. This isn't a Ft. Ord earmark; $10 million for the whole Nation, but I'm here to request that. We're kind of stuck because the Veterans' Committee doesn't want to create any new national cemeteries because they got a backlog and yet they don't want the States to run them either and this committee is in a position where you can run——
 Page 626       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. But you also know that we are somewhat stuck, as well, because all of you point to us and say, how come you guys are doing all of this authorizing all the time? Eighty-five percent of our bill is unauthorized and yet the authorization committees say, how come you guys aren't——

    Mr. ANDREWS. Feel free to authorize AmeriCorps. [Laughter.]

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LEWIS. Maybe we should. Karen Thurman is here though. Can we get you in and out maybe?

    Mr. ROEMER. Can I just review my statement from this morning, sir?

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

    [The information follows:]
Thursday, April 23, 1998.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS
 Page 627       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

HON. KAREN L. THURMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Ms. THURMAN. Water, water, water, brevity, money. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Ms. THURMAN. Is that the way it is?

    Mr. STOKES. But I don't think the Chairman knew that I was stationed at Ft. Ord. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate very much your testimony.

    Ms. THURMAN. Bill Young put in a request. I'm actually trying to complement his. I heard he's talked to you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

    Ms. THURMAN. You all know this. You've been great for us for the last couple of years. We just need to keep it going.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your help.

    Ms. THURMAN. I know.
 Page 628       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Do you want some water, Karen?

    Ms. THURMAN. No. [Laughter.]

    Believe me, Mr. Stokes, I wouldn't be here about water.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Thursday, Arpil 23, 1998.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WITNESS

HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Mr. LEWIS. We will be in recess until after we vote.

    [Recess.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Forbes, your entire testimony will be included in the record. If you would briefly summarize it for us, we not only will get through this process, but probably with a bit more money. [Laughter.]
 Page 629       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much and I thank the committee the very generous support that this committee made possible for a very important institution on Long Island—Hillside Hospital. Hillside Hospital is best known, certainly by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Clinical Research Center because of their tremendous emphasis on the study of schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders. Not only are they involved in psychiatric research and rehabilitation and treatment, but in the region they are well-known for the mental health and substance abuse work that they do. They treat over 30,000 individuals a year who come through that facility—even on outpatient bases largely for 223 bedside deaths are possible.

    It is, frankly, well over 50 years old—the structure and this committee expressed its sensitivity and I appreciate it again. Last year, and I would just made an appeal. We obviously made an appeal, the Committee could help in a small way again this year, we've asked formally for $3 million. That's just part of the overall $40 million renovation and rehabilitation that the Long Island Jewish Board of Trustees has approved and largely those dollars will all be private sector dollars so there is a healthy private sector involvement rather than expecting public dollars to do the lion's share of the work. So I just want to make an appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the committee for your——

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me add to your commentary, Mr. Forbes, if you would. You may remember last year, we had a thing called the line veto around that time. I don't anticipate it is going to play a role in this year's circumstances and there were more one than project in the region that was under some consideration. Rabbi Balcony was in my office earlier today and I indicated that—I think, in fact, he went and talked with Mr. Walsh on my behalf. In the meantime, I would hope the two of you would talk about those items and get back to me and we'll see what happens.
 Page 630       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. FORBES. He is a very good friend of mine and I would be more than happy to share that. Thank you for that. Just one other final area, if I could raise the sensitivity. I know this committee is already sensitive to it, but the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry—I have had a tremendous experience—a very favorable experience with this agency. They have, for example, in just recent years—they have been involved in studying two Superfund sites in one commercial gasoline station which has been a large source of problems to our sole-source aquifer on Long Island. They had done a tremendous job there at that agency and I know that the President's budget reduces the monies for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR, by about $10 million. I would hope that maybe the committee would be sensitive to—really the excellent work that this committee's doing—I should say this agency is doing. They have an operating budget of about $74 million. If we were to go along with the President's recommendation, we would see some discontinued activities along the line of a tremendous backlog in Superfund sites alone.

    I have to say that I think there is an area here—in just national public policy—that dictates that I think the ATSDR is probably going to have an even more dominant role in helping communities—neighbors who are living adjacent to some of these sites work through what is largely a great concern on the part of health care concerns. Sometimes in all due respect to them, a lot of times it may be overstated, but the ATSDR has the ability to professionally go in and help communities work through some of their concerns. In other areas, they do help to separate a lot of the hyperbole and rhetoric from actual concerns and they have done a tremendous job. So if the Committee in your deliberations can see fit to try to sustain the funding as opposed to cutting it by $10 million.

 Page 631       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I know there are a lot of demands on this committee, as there are on some of our other subcommittees, and I am very, very sensitive to the juggling that has to be done to make sure that we stay within the framework of a balanced budget. But I just again—Mr. Chairman and to the Ranking Member—I want to make sure that you understand that I am most appreciative personally for the excellent work that is done by this committee and for the very wonderful dialogue that we have had over the last couple of years on some issues.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Forbes. We appreciate not just the sensitivity but the patience you have with this committee over the past year. But we look forward optimistically.

    Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. STOKES. I just concur with the Chairman's comments and I want you to know we appreciate very much your testimony.

    Mr. FORBES. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LEWIS. I might mention to my colleague that the next two people on our list are friends and that is the end of our hearing today. David Bonior talked to me personally recently about an item that he was interested in. I am not sure if either of you have talked yet.
 Page 632       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. I have talked with him and I suggested that he come over but if he has talked with you, then we can——

    Mr. LEWIS. Might I suggest that in view of this schedule that we just may include that information on the record. When we get to it, we will do what we can do. In the meantime, William Jefferson is the last witness. I am not sure exactly what his priorities might be, but frankly, what I would suggest that we include his testimony in the record and suggest to him that we will give it the highest priority consideration and you and I will do what we can for him.

    Mr. STOKES. I concur fully, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Any problem with that?

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. With that, then we have completed the testimony. We will accept all of those items for the record and appreciate the gentlemen participating. The meeting is adjourned. We are through for the year.

    Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, congratulations.
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."