Segment 1 Of 2     Next Hearing Segment(2)

 Page 1       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.





    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    Hi, Frank. Good to see you.

    Is there anybody from the American Federation of Government Employees present? I guess not.

    Then, second on my list is the National Science Foundation, Peter Freeman. All right. From the Computing Research Association, right?

    Mr. FREEMAN. That's correct.

 Page 2       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Well, welcome.

    Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you, sir. Pleased to be here.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your entire statement will be included in the record and if you'd like to summarize it for us, we'd appreciate it.

    Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. You may have a seat. Thank you.

    Mr. FREEMAN. I would like to do that.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it's a pleasure to be here this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to testify about NSF.

    My name is Peter Freeman. I'm dean of the College of Computing at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. I also serve on the board of directors of the Computing Research Association and serve as the chair of its government affairs committee. And, I am testifying on behalf of the CRA, not Georgia Tech, this morning.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. FREEMAN. We have submitted, as you noted, our written testimony to the record and I'd like to just make some very brief oral comments.
 Page 3       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'd like to start by again indicating my pleasure at being here and thanking you, this subcommittee, for supporting through some fairly tough times over the last few years basic research as carried out by those of us that work with the National Science Foundation. We really appreciate that. It's been very important to our community.

    Our testimony makes three points—and let me just summarize those—about computing research. First, as I think everyone understands, information technology is essential to the security, to the welfare, to the economic health of this country, and underlying this technology—which is approaching, perhaps, 10 percent of our national economy or even greater—lies many years of basic research.

    Secondly, we make the point that, even though computing research has led to a number of developments, that that is going to expand by amounts that we cannot even really estimate in the coming years; we've only begun to see the information technology revolution.

    Our third point, as I've already noted, is that NSF has already been essential to that revolution and all of us in the computing research field believe that it will continue to be a real leader in creating the security, the economic well-being, and the welfare for all of our citizens.

    What I thought I would do in the few moments I have is to put a bit of a personal face on computing research and, although I'm testifying on behalf of the Computing Research Association, let me use a couple of examples of how NSF-funded research plays out in a unit such as my own.
 Page 4       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I have approximately 45 tenure-track faculty that do a wide variety of computer science and computing-related research. One of those is a young woman by the name of Ann Chervanack. Like any young professor, she is encouraged—indeed, has been trained—in her graduate work at Berkeley to ask fundamental questions. When she arrived in Atlanta to join my faculty almost three years ago, like most young faculty it took her a little while to get her feet on the ground, figure out what she wanted to do. Very quickly, however, her graduate training—which had been funded by NSF, among others—led her to start asking some very basic questions.

    What she has innovated is a project that she is calling the ''personal terrabyte'' project. A terrabyte is a measure of the amount of storage on a computer. Strictly speaking, it's a trillion bytes. To give you a sense of magnitude, all of the Library of Congress has maybe 10 terrabytes of information in it. So, her point is that the technology is——

    Mr. LEWIS. A trillion bytes?

    Mr. FREEMAN. A trillion bytes——

    Mr. LEWIS. Terrabyte——

    Mr. FREEMAN [continuing]. Is a terrabyte.

    And, her point is that the technology is racing ahead so that within a very few years' four or five perhaps, you're going to have the ability to have a terrabyte sitting on your desktop for a few hundred dollars.
 Page 5       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ten percent of the Library of Congress. Now, that leads to some rather interesting questions. What are you going to do with it? How are you going to organize it? How are you going to find anything in it? How are you going to back that information up?

    Some of that seems like something that industry would be asking and, in some respects, they may be. But, what she and her students are trying to do is to look at those kinds of questions in a very basic sense. It's not product development and she isn't going to develop a new product. But, what she is developing are some undergraduates that are involved in her research, some graduate students that will go out and become professors or become advanced development people in industry, and, in general, is helping push forward that area of technology.

    Our other case that I would share with you is a very interesting young man, also an assistant professor, but who's only been with us a bit longer, about five years. He's a young man that we see more and more of today in the computing research area. He's driven by dual interests. On the one hand, he's very interested in how do children learn, what's the cognition behind them. That led him to get a Ph.D. in Education at the University of Michigan, one of the top educational schools in the country. But, he also has a very strong interest in technology—computing technology in particular—so he also has a Ph.D. in Computer Science.

    And, what he's now doing is bringing those two disciplines together in some very innovative and interesting research that very simply could be looked at, a Lotus Notes for students, but much, much beyond that, and asking some very basic questions—both in terms of how do children learn and how do they best learn, given a new technology, as well as pushing forward those technological foundations.
 Page 6       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Both of these young people are supported at present by National Science Foundation career awards. Dr. Gusdow being a bit further along, is also a part of several other research projects, collaborating with people in other disciplines also supported by NSF.

    So, I hope that these kinds of little vignettes give you, perhaps, a personal sense of the kinds of research that the National Science Foundation supports. I would be more than happy to answer any additional questions that you might have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Freeman, I very much appreciate your testimony. Let me just say, for the audience in general, that while we haven't received our budget allocations yet, the Committee has been directed to, in no uncertain terms by way of the Speaker's office, that we should, as we go about reducing the rate of gross for the government, nonetheless, within these budgets do everything that we possibly can to find dollars for research purposes. And the Speaker—I very strongly applaud the Speaker's statement that he wants to double these budgets for research dollars in the short years ahead. We're going to do everything that we can on this subcommittee to try to accommodate. I won't repeat that line with every witness that we—[laughter]—have, but in the meantime——

    Mr. FREEMAN. I will say thank you on behalf of all of them.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes. I might mention to you that I'm sorry to be delayed this morning but there were four chancellors to the University of California in my office and it was hard to cut off the conversation because these same subjects were a part of that discussion, too.
 Page 7       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FREEMAN. I understand.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.

    Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No, I have no questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for your answers.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.


 Page 8       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. James Siedow? Is that right? The American Society of Plant Physiologists?

    Mr. SIEDOW. Correct.

    Mr. LEWIS. Welcome.

    Mr. SIEDOW. Thank you; glad to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee and I'd like to also thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.

    My name is Jim Siedow and I'm Dean of Faculty Development of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Botany at Duke University. My testimony is on behalf of the American Society of Plant Physiologists, which I have served as President and currently serve on their public affairs committee. This society is a professional science society of some 5,000 members. We recruit plant scientists from industry, university, and government laboratories.

    Support by the National Science Foundation for plant research provides basic knowledge of the structure and function of plants. This basic knowledge can lead to important agricultural, pharmaceutical and environmental applications—as I hope to make clear by the end of this talk. As explained in the National Science Foundation Director Neil Lane's statement to the Subcommittee earlier this month, the $40 million requested by the NSF in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget for plant genome research will advance our understanding of the structure, organization, and function of plant genomes, with particular attention being paid to economically significant plants. This research will accelerate application of new biological knowledge and innovative technologies toward a more complete understanding of basic biological processes in plants.
 Page 9       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In January of this year, the White House-appointed Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes completed its report at the request of Senator Bond. The report notes that major challenges facing mankind in the 21st century are: the need to increase fuel and fiber production; a cleaner environment; and renewable chemical and energy resources. And, the report points out that plant-based technologies can play a major role in meeting these challenges.

    The IWG report recommended investment of an additional $320 million over five years to make significant progress on the scientific objectives it outlined for plant genome research. A copy of the cover page and executive summary of the IWG report is concluded with my testimony and I request to submit the final IWG report to the Committee.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Thank you.

    Mr. SIEDOW. On the recommendation on the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees of VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies and with the support of—with a supportive interim IWG report, Congress last year launched the plant genome initiative in Fiscal Year 1998 with an appropriation of $40 million.

    Plant genome research supported by this subcommittee will help to open the world of functional genomics to plant research and will speed up the application of genomic information to develop improved plants and plant products. This was referred to recently in a Science editorial by Phil Abelson as part of a genomic revolution. This revolution will lead to the development of enhanced plants that will meet the food and nutritional needs of the Nation and our trading partners.
 Page 10       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The simple fact of the matter is—and I dont have to tell someone from California—we don't have more land to grow crops on. In fact, we have less. We need to genetically engineer plants which will grow more efficiently, which will have greater resistant to pests and other diseases, and a better tolerance to adverse weather conditions, such as drought.

    As we learn more about the structure and function of plant genomes, plant scientists will be able to better engineer superior varieties of plants, enhancing the nutritional quality of the food Americans eat, which, in turn, will promote the Nations health. Plants are already a major source of pharmaceutical products. Research that will lead to genetic engineering of plants to treat or prevent human diseases is already underway and this is an area with tremendous potential for reducing human suffering, both in this country and across the world—and, I might add, lowering health care costs in the long run.

    The availability in the United States of plant-produced fuel with prices at near the cost of petroleum help keep the cost of imported oil down. Further knowledge of plant genomes and related plant research will help make domestically-produced biofuels directly competitive in price with petroleum, allowing them to meet a larger portion of U.S. energy needs in the future. This, in turn, I might add, will cut down on emission of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

    In summary, the support of this subcommittee—the past support and, we hope, future support—for both genomic and non-genomic plant research supported by the National Science Foundation helps plant scientists make the basic research breakthroughs needed to address nutrition, health, and energy needs of this Nation and the world. We deeply appreciate the strong commitment of this subcommittee that enables the U.S. science community to lead the world in plant research in this new age of biology. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
 Page 11       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'd be very happy to address any questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much Dr. Siedow. I don't have any questions but I appreciate your testimony. It will be included in the record.

    Mr. SIEDOW. Great.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you.

    Mr. SIEDOW. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Alan Kraut? Dr. Kraut with the American Psychological Society? It's good to see you again.

    Mr. KRAUT. It's nice to be here again.

    I want to thank you for allowing me again here to discuss National Science Foundation funding on behalf of the American Psychological Society. Our members are scientists and academics who conduct research on such basic behavioral processes as visual and auditory perception and attention, on memory, on cognitive science and information processing, decisionmaking, human development, emotions, and group behavior, just to name a few.

    Attached to my written statement is a recent report, ''Basic Research in Psychological Science,'' which I hope will be of use to you as you consider NSF's mission and priorities.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. KRAUT. As a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding, the American Psychological Society asks you to support the Coalition's recommendation of a 10 percent increase for NSF.

    But, my remarks today are going to focus mainly on the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, known as SBE. This subcommittee has encouraged the establishment of SBE and has played a role in strengthening it over the last several years and we're very grateful for that support. SBE is scheduled for a 15 percent increase, which would bring us to about $150 million this year, and the research division within the Directorate is up for more than a 16 percent increase, which would bring the division to a total of nearly $114 million.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    These increases signal NSF's enthusiasm for behavioral and social science research. Why? Because of both the progress and the potential of basic research in these disciplines. For example, NSF is giving priority to research in the area known as Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, KDI. Behavioral science is a cornerstone of the KDI effort.

    In my written testimony, I've described some of the specific research projects conducted under KDI. One is an automated, computerized tutor that combines user-friendly dialog with effective, educational practices. This project is drawing on basic research of psychologists in the area of communications and comprehension as well as work from computer scientists and educators. In another KDI project, researchers are increasing our understanding of how sound takes meaning, of how the brain takes in the audio signal of the spoken word and processes it. This projects uses concepts from psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, statistics, computer science, and electrical engineering and puts them all into a framework for understanding spoken language.

    Today, I also want to touch briefly on something called the Human Capital Initiative, which is funded under SBE. This is a National Behavioral Science Research agenda that was first developed by scientists across the range of psychological science; from those studying the brain to those studying organizations. As the name applies, the unifying concept involves the development of human capital. Human capital research was embraced and expanded by NSF following several years of encouragement by this committee. In fact, the report I referred to earlier is one of its products.

    Today, human capital research includes many disciplines and partnerships with many other NSF Directorates. It's reached about $16 million. With your support, that will increase in 1999 with most of the increase going to research on children and learning.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This program, by the way, owes a particular debt to Mr. Stokes who worked to provide essential funding for the program in its early stages. Human capital research is just one of the legacies Mr. Stokes—I wish he were here because for this and for many others, I'd like to thank him and tell him that we would miss him greatly and that we wish him all the best in his retirement.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for that thought.

    I'll make sure he knows.

    Mr. KRAUT. So, you see, this subcommittee's support of behavioral science is being rewarded with unprecedented scientific productivity. Behavioral research represents some of the country's best science and has the potential to increase our understanding of some of the Nation's greatest concerns: literacy, productivity, international relations, technological achievement, cultural diversity, and the development of human capital, just to name a few. The critical role of this research and the fact that the field is poised for rapid expansion are reflected in the proposed NSF budget and we encourage your support of it. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Kraut. I appreciate your being with us. As I indicated, your entire statement will be included in the record——

    Mr. KRAUT. Thank you.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. And this, as well.

    Mr. KRAUT. Okay.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes, thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.






    Mr. LEWIS. Next on our list are Dr. Paul Walter, Dr. Andrew Sessler, Dr. Ralph Yount from the American Chemical Society.

    I appreciate all three of you gentlemen coming with us and your patience with our schedule. [Laughter.]
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Please tell me how you want to proceed.

    Mr. SESSLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify at this hearing. I'm Andrew Sessler, President of the American Physical Society, which is the largest physics membership organization in the world.

    I am here today with my colleagues, Dr. Paul Walter, President of the American Chemical Society, and Dr. Ralph Yount, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

    This is truly a unique occasion. For the first time, leaders of organizations representing a quarter of a million scientists have joined to present common testimony before this subcommittee in support of the National Science Foundation. We have done so because we share a common belief that the future of our Nation depends critically upon our scientific excellence and because today the scientific disciplines have become thoroughly intertwined and totally interdependent.

    I am pleased to yield to my colleague, Dr. Paul Walter who has agreed to speak on behalf of all three of us.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Walter.

    Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul Walter, President of the American Chemical Society, representing over 150,000 chemists and chemical engineers in academia, industry and government.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We commend you for taking the lead last year in recognizing the critical importance of the National Science Foundation and funding it accordingly. The substantial increase Congress provided for NSF for Fiscal Year 1998 resulted from the 6.6 percent increase initially provided by this subcommittee.

    Last year, as you know, more than 100 leaders of science, engineering and mathematic organizations joined together in a call to double Federal investment in research within a decade. We continue to urge this course of action because we passionately believe that the economic well-being, health, quality of life, and security of our citizenry depend critically upon robust and sustained investments in research.

    In keeping with those goals, we come before you today to ask that you continue to make investments in our Nation's future by supporting the 10 percent increase for the National Science Foundation proposed in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1999 and endorsed by the Coalition for National Science Funding.

    The National Science Foundation is unique among Federal agencies. It has the responsibility for supporting long-term research in practically all scientific and engineering disciplines. In addition, as the only agency supporting research that is not mission-oriented, the NSF is the prime steward of the enabling sciences upon which virtually all Federal science and technology programs depend. Finally, it is the only Federal agency in which scientific research and education are fully integrated. Let me briefly address each of these unique features.

    Today, as my colleague Andy Sessler has indicated, the sciences have become almost totally interdependent. For example, AIDS research dramatizes this point. Our progress in treating this terrible disease and our understanding of its pathology would never have occurred without critical advances in chemistry, biology, and physics and, yes, mathematics, engineering and computer science as well. The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency that has the program breadth needed to see that all the disciplines remain vibrant and healthy.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Last year, the Federal R&D budget amounted to a little more than $75 billion. Of that, more than 90 percent was devoted to mission-oriented or strategic work. Since scientific research always has the potential for revolutionary discovery, we believe that our Nation must sustain investments in non-mission-oriented science. The proposed increase for the National Science Foundation is consistent with that strategy.

    In conclusion, let me underscore the key role that chemistry, physics and biology play in the American economy. Today, the chemical industry accounts for 1.9 percent of the Nation's GDP and is the number one contributor to U.S. exports. Physics, I am sure you all know, was the enabling science that resulted in the a $1-trillion-a-year computer industry. Recently, it gave us the World Wide Web that has revolutionized the way we communicate and conduct business. And biology, of course, is the underpinning of the entire biotechnology industry, one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy. These advances are attributable in large part to the Federal Government's investment in research through which scientists are trained and new fundamental discoveries are made.

    I now yield to my colleague Dr. Ralph Yount for a closing remark.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Dr. Yount.

    Mr. YOUNT. Mr. Chairman, I'm Ralph Yount, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, representing 14 scientific societies with approximately 52,000 members.

 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I'm a former president of the Biophysical Society and a long-time member of the American Chemical Society and I'm delighted to be a participant in this historic occasion which brings together three of the major scientific disciplines in support——

    Mr. LEWIS. It's a very unusual occasion?

    Mr. YOUNT [continuing]. Yes—in support of—it should have happened long ago.

    These disciplines, as my colleagues have noted, are fundamentally intertwined and we must develop a comprehensive investment strategy to allow each of those to develop their full potential. Not only is this approach key to the future health and economic prosperity of our citizens, it's also essential for maintaining the excellence of our universities, which are really the envy of the world. And, I join Dr. Sessler, Dr. Walter in urging your committee to appropriate $3.8 billion for NSF, a 10 percent increase over last year's fiscal budget. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, we very much appreciate your all coming together. Mrs. Meek, do you have any questions of these gentlemen?

    Mrs. MEEK. No, I do not.

    Mr. LEWIS. I just might mention to you that it's been suggested that ''Jerry Lewis,'' which is an unusual name but I had the name first, has led for the development of a group known as ''Jerry's Kids'' and regardless of what he might have said, Clint Lewis—who's with you today—may or may not have played a role in some of that.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. YOUNT. Yes; yes, he did.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good to be with you. Take care.

    Mr. YOUNT. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Smart kid.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see. Jean Futrell with the Council for Chemical Research, Incorporated? Mr. Futrell? Your statement will all be included in the record. If you'll summarize that for us, we'll move right along. Appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. FUTRELL. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Meek, my name is Jean Futrell. I'm the Chair-elect of the Council for Chemical Research and the Willis F. Harrington Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Delaware. We join other professional societies who are testifying today, notably the American Chemical Society and the Coalition for National Science Funding, in strongly recommending Congress to fund the National Science Foundation at a level of no less than $3.77 billion, an increase of 10 percent over the current appropriation.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In meeting with you today, I am substituting for Dr. Gary McGraw who is Vice President for Technological Innovation at Eastman Chemical Corporation. Gary is the Chair this year of the Council for Chemical Research, the professional society whose members are the leaders of the Nation's chemical research enterprise.

    We represent in CCR the major companies, universities and government laboratories which conduct research in the chemical sciences and engineering. The Council feels strongly that the erosion of funding of the NSF needs to be reversed. A 10 percent increase, although substantial, would restore the ground lost since Fiscal Year 1995 in purchasing power of the appropriated dollars and provides for modest growth of 2 percent. This increase would enable new discovery and educate some of the world's brightest scientists and engineers. It is clearly in the best interests of the Nation and crucial to our continued economic growth.

    The NSF is the only agency, as you very well know, with overall responsibility for research and education in all scientific and engineering fields. Its role as a steward of the Nation's science enterprise faces new challenges, such as promoting new approaches to research, to education, to training the technological workforce that is required for our Nation as we enter the next century.

    Despite these challenges, the purchasing power has been eroded by about 8 percent since 1995. This erosion—partly because of the very high efficiency, that the NSF administrative costs are only a small fraction of the appropriations—this cut is felt directly by those who conduct research and participate in education at our universities. Research and education are the keys to our Nation's future and the ultimate impact of the restricted growth or cuts is detrimental to all of us.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Council understands very well the importance of NSF funding for both scientific research and in education from Kindergarten through post-graduate studies. Increasingly, the chemical industry, for whom I'm a spokesperson today, relies upon universities for discovery research which is the basis for new products and processes.

    For example, about half of the research cited and the patents applied for in the last decade cite as the basis of their discovery research that was supported by public sources, primarily the National Science Foundation. In chemistry alone, for example, this research contributes directly to necessities of modern life including plastics, synthetic fabrics, cleaner burning fuels, pharmaceuticals, advanced materials for electronics, and a cleaner environment.

    The Council for Chemical Research appreciates that the budget decisions confronting this committee are not easy. The case for investing in the future by funding the NSF at the level requested stands on its own merits and has to be considered against concerns about spending for individual help and security. As you proceed with your deliberations, we ask you to consider that the NSF funding represents only 0.2 percent of the Federal budget but represents 25 percent of all Federal support for academic institutions to conduct basic research.

    Although the Foundation is formally classified as part of the discretionary budget, it is our view that NSF funding is properly viewed as investment which yields very high returns to our society at large. We note the last 50 years, the technological innovation, the sciences supporting it was accounted for by about 50 percent of all economic growth.

 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Meek, the support of this subcommittee in this enterprise and we ask the Congress to take the long view in these difficult choices which affect the future capability of the Nation's innovation engine. I thank you for your attention and the opportunity to testify.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Futrell, thank you very much for being with us. I don't have any questions.

    Mrs. Meek or Mr. Walsh.

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

    Mr. WALSH. No questions.

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

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Slaughter, by chance are all your guests here?

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. They are. We——

    Mr. LEWIS. I'm going to——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. We're happy to wait our turn.

    Mr. LEWIS. I'm going to exercise the discretion of the Chair and have you come up. I know your schedule is every bit as difficult as Ms. Meek's and mine, so, would you come up?

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, then, you're very kind. I hope——

    Mr. LEWIS. Sure. Please do.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. Other speakers won't object. I appreciate it very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Frankly, they'd be disappointed if I didn't allow them to hear you. [Laughter.]
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Oh, my goodness. That's probably the nicest anybody ever said to me. Isn't that wonderful?

    Mr. WALSH. He's not always this charming. [Laughter.]

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe he is. It's wonderful to see you this morning, Mr. Chairman, my neighbor here, Jim Walsh, and I'll be very brief and not try your patience since you've been so gracious to me——

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate that.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. But I——

    Mr. LEWIS. If you'd leave that tin on the way out, I'd appreciate that——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Isn't that a wonderful one?

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes, I like it.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. It was given to me by some school kids——

    Mr. LEWIS. It's great; it's wonderful.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. I'm happy to be here today to introduce the Vice President of the University Relations for the Rochester Institute of Technology, Mr. Nathan Robfogel——

    Mr. LEWIS. Rochester, is that in New York?

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. It sure is. [Laughter.]

    Actually, everything in New York sort of revolves out from Rochester. [Laughter.]

    And Dr. Nabil Nasr——

    Mr. WALSH. And what is at the center of——


    Ms. SLAUGHTER. If he picks it——

    Mr. WALSH. Syracuse——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. Syracuse is, yes. [Laughter.]

    And Dr. Nasr, who heads the RIT National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery. Mr. Robfogel will describe the commitment that the University is making to the emerging field of remanufacturing and the benefits that it will provide to EPA. Now, Dr. Nasr, who is the leading scientist in the field of remanufacturing in the Nation, will answer any technical questions that you may have.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The mission of EPA's Science and Technology Program is to promote long-term basic and short-term applied research on a wide range of environmental and health concerns and to provide the scientific knowledge and technologies to prevent pollution. As such, RIT's Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery will enhance the effectiveness of the EPA Science and Technology Program by allowing the EPA to work with United States manufacturers to design products in ways that dramatically reduce pollution, energy consumption, and waste.

    To put it simply, the new product manufacturing creates 87 percent of the waste produced in the United States. But, with remanufactured products which consist of 80 to 90 percent used components, we can dramatically reduce that waste and the pollution that it creates.

    RIT is requesting $2.2 million to work with the EPA to address the Agency's research mission and I am hopeful that you will look kindly upon this request and I thank you very much and I'd now like to introduce Mr. Robfogel.

    Mr. ROBFOGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your testimony as well will be included in the record in its entirety so if you would summarize it, we appreciate that.

    Mr. ROBFOGEL. Yes, we clearly intend to do that by submitting our formal testimony. My thanks to you and your colleagues and my thanks also to Congresswoman Slaughter for introducing us.

 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    You have long been a great champion for what we do at RIT in manufacturing, research, imaging, microelectronics, and many other areas and we're very grateful for that.

    Mr. Chairman, my name is Nick Robfogel and I'm Vice President for University Relations at RIT. Dr. Nasr is, as the Congresswoman has indicated, a leading scientist in the Nation in the emerging area of remanufacturing which can have a profound effect on our Nation's industrial sector.

    Mr. Chairman, RIT is over 100 years old. It's a comprehensive technological university which has had a long and distinguished history of supporting the Nation's manufacturing sector through applied research, education and training. The University's most recent and notable effort is the establishment of the National Center of Excellence in Remanufacturing Research.

    Just a few examples of remanufactured products are Kodak's single-use camera, Xerox and other photocopier cartridges, automobile carburetors, brakes and starters, military vehicle engines, the B-52 Bomber, and the Bradley fighting vehicle.

    Today, Mr. Chairman, we want to bring to your attention and that of the Subcommittee the extremely positive environmental impact of remanufacturing which should be used on a more widespread basis. Remanufacturing is truly the ultimate form of recycling and the way that the United States' manufacturing sector can prevent further costly regulatory action against them by EPA and other regulators.

 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    While recycling reclaims the original materials used to create a product, remanufacturing also reclaims the body of the product itself and all of the design and engineering aspects of that product. Plus, the economic materials and environmental costs associated with making that product new are avoided. Just as importantly, the pollution caused by raw materials extraction and with manufacturing them into a final production are also avoided.

    Mr. Chairman, remanufacturing is a powerful example of how the goals of environmental protection and economic growth can go hand-in-hand. As the Congresswoman has indicated, new product manufacturing creates 87 percent of all the waste produced in the United States. Our remanufactured product can consist of up to 80 to 90 percent of used parts. These parts would have resulted in more waste or pollution associated with making new ones.

    What we offer the Subcommittee are a couple of very brief, specific examples. Remanufactured automobile starters annually save about 8 million gallons of crude oil, 52,000 tons of iron ore, and 6,000 tons of copper. Kodak's single-use camera remanufacturing initiative salvaged parts and materials from over 100 million single-use cameras resulting in the diversion of 14 million pounds of waste from the entry of the waste stream.

    Mr. Chairman, while pollution prevention has become the guiding principle of EPA's efforts to protect the environment, Federal environmental policy still overemphasizes the treatment of waste products rather than improving the environmental friendliness of the manufacturing process which created them. Our National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery is seeking a partnership with EPA under which RIT remanufacturing engineers will work with the agency and the Nation's manufacturers to establish techniques and processes whereby industry will adopt manufacturing practices on a more widespread basis.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The focus of this program will be to conduct applied research in conjunction with manufacturers to address environmental pollution at the source; during the product design and manufacturing process. If we can get manufacturers to design their products at the outset with remanufacturing in mind, we can achieve significant savings in environmental costs in both the short-and long-terms.

    The National Center is requesting $2.2 million in the Fiscal Year 1999 EPA budget to begin this applied research program which will focus on six specific areas which are outlined in our formal written testimony. The research program will be conducted at RIT's new 157,000 square foot manufacturing research laboratory, the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies. That is the only such facility of its kind in the United States.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify. We hope you will support this important initiative which we believe is an alternative to further costly environmental compliance action and new regulations. Dr. Nasr and I are available to answer any questions you might have and Dr. Nasr has a very up-to-the-minute item that we'd like to submit as a part of our testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Robfogel. Dr. Nasr.

    Mr. NASR. If I may, I would like to insert this document—the EPA document—that remanufacturers have referenced.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you very much.

    Ms. Slaughter, I don't have any questions but we certainly appreciate your guests being with us.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much, and we appreciate your kindness.

    Mr. LEWIS. A pleasure.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. We're pleased to be here.

    Mr. LEWIS. Questions.

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

    Mr. WALSH. Just a comment. Certainly, I'd like to welcome my colleague to our subcommittee today and the officials and professors at RIT. It's a wonderful institution, it's a wonderful community, it certainly—if there was to be a focus on remanufacturing, it should come from a community that is worldwide renown for quality of manufacturing with home to Xerox, Kodak, Bausch & Lomb, to name a few.

    I've always marvelled at the program that Kodak has about taking all those cameras back and recycling them.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It's a marvelous program. I wonder, did RIT provide any consultancy on that or is that a Kodak-spawned idea of their own?

    Mr. NASR. We trained a lot of their engineers, educated a lot of them.

    Mr. WALSH. I see. [Laughter.]

    So, the thought process—the critical thinking process came from RIT.

    Mr. NASR. It actually came from——

    Mr. WALSH. I'm going to make that assumption. [Laughter.]

    Mr. NASR [continuing]. The engineers that we trained.

    Mr. WALSH. Yes.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Jim, the Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies is really the bridge to the 21st Century and we would like to invite you to come over and all the rest of you, if you can——

    Mr. LEWIS. Right.

 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. SLAUGHTER [continuing]. But we can sort of capture Jim from next door but we'd welcome having you come to see it.

    Mr. WALSH. I'm not that far away——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. It is quite remarkable.

    Mr. WALSH. RIT—I'd like to talk about our education component in New York State, at RIT, that is so critical to the future——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Yes.

    Mr. WALSH [continuing]. Of New York State and its technology. We have Cornell and RIT and the University of Rochester-Syracuse—and all within 80 to 90 miles of each other——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. All working together——

    Mr. WALSH [continuing]. So, I will be very supportive——

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, we appreciate that very, very much——

    Mr. WALSH. I'll do my best to get the chairman to do the same.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you all.

    Mr. LEWIS. I want you to know that items like that which Dr. Nasr will provide will be included in the committee file to make sure that that information is available. If we have additional questions, we'll extend them.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. We would love to hear from you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you again.

    Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much.

    Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much.

    Mr. ROBFOGEL. Thank you.

    Mr. NASR. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. David Johnson, who's the Executive Director of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences? Dr. Johnson, I appreciate your patience. Just a little interruption there in our schedule. Thank you. You've been with us before so just——

    Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, we find ourselves in the odd situation as we look at the upgrowing 1999 budget of sending that money everywhere but none to use. The tobacco settlement seems to be slipping away, the current sentiment seems——

    Mr. LEWIS. Money everywhere but none to use.

    Mr. JOHNSON. Well said.

    The current sentiment seems to be set all of the budget surplus aside for some security and if the transportation authorization is reflected in appropriations without a change in spending caps, many programs may have to be cut to pay for the new transportation initiatives.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It isn't quite what we thought the second year of the budget surplus would look like and we hope, in the end, that it won't look that way.

    This subcommittee has long understood the importance of basic research supported by the National Science Foundation. In the leanest times, you kept the NSF budget stable and whenever there was an opportunity to do so, you'd see that the budget could grow a little faster than inflation.

    The overall effect through the 1980's and 1990's has been a budget for NSF that has almost kept pace with inflation. Given the circumstances of those decades that isn't a bad record. But it has been demonstrated that economic growth has spurred a significant degree of research. In a time of prosperity it is clear that an extra effort should be made to do research simply because it is one of the best ways to ensure that prosperity will continue.

    We join with all the other groups that have been parading before you and urging that in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget there be a 10 percent increase for NSF. The initiatives that NSF would undertake with its budget would show the substantial growth relative to the research needs of our time. We're living in the information age. Through its knowledge and distributed intelligence initiative, NSF proposes to help drive the information age to new heights. Many with the most powerful tools in the information age are not used to full capacity in the education of our children. Through NSF's proposed joint research program with the Department of Education, the gap would be narrowed between what is possible technically and what is used to advantage in the teaching of children.

 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    For the first time, NSF also proposes to launch a research program focused on children. The Federal government for all practical purposes is the ''funder'' of research on children. What we know scientifically about child development and about how to help children develop well is the direct result of Federal support. But the expenditure for research on their behalf amounts to about 2 percent of the Federal R&D budget. That isn't enough of an investment to ensure that we learn enough to help children have a future we want for them.

    NSF's recognition of the need for focus on research for children is something that needs to have your strong support. The constraints that at the moment make it seem difficult to reach a 10 percent increase for NSF, or even to hold it at its fiscal year 1998 level, are not insurmountable. They were arrived at through the political process and can be modified by the same process. We appreciate that you have a difficult job in trying to find the right balance among many worthy undertakings that are, and could be, supported with Federal funds, but I think it's safe to say that scientists, educators, and parents are supportive of the direction in which NSF wants to move, and would be equally supportive of your efforts to help NSF succeed.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much Dr. Johnson. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. WALSH. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, appreciate it.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Bob Boeding, who is with the National Corn Growers' Association. Mr. Boeding?

    Mr. BOEDING. Good day, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. You've heard about summarizing statements and otherwise?

    Mr. BOEDING. I certainly have. Yes, sir.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate it.

    Mr. BOEDING. I take that to heart and the full statement has gone on the record.

    My name is Bob Boeding, corn farmer from the town of Lawler, Iowa, northeast Iowa. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the importance of this National Science Foundation's Plant Genome Initiative. I testify in behalf of the Nation's 30,000 corn growers, or 80 percent of the Nation's corn producers. The NCGA believes that the most important appropriations issue for fiscal year 1999 is funding for plant genomics research. We also concur with Philip Abelson's article in the Science Journal, I've forgotten the date that was quoted here, but his statement essentially says, ''the early phases of this third technological revolution, genomics revolution, will be the most important we've seen so far.''

    With that, I'll diverge to a slightly personalization and expansion of the points that were made in this. The first item is the intellectual property rights we wish to protect for those genomic work that's done here in the United States. There is some concern that the Japanese have proceeded the pace with the rice genome and inasmuch as EST's are relatively congruent, it would seem that they could proceed very rapidly in this. So, the concern would be that an external body, such as this, could license this, and we would be faced with relatively high seed costs. Our able researchers within the States would be provided the intellectual property rights that are justly their's.

    While shifting from our commodity bulk grain sales to a crop with a specific high intrinsic value will enable our consumers locally, domestically, nationally, and internationally to obtain a greater net value from what they are buying, and hopefully, I and my fellow farmers could realize a slightly higher price from the better quality higher intrinsic value corn.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The fourth item I've combined here have been mentioned earlier, the higher ethanol yield per pound or per bushel, or per pound biomass, more rapid timber growth, these all fit the higher holistic balance that's demanded for a population that is expected to double in my lifetime. I really, I look at that with this rapid rise and it staggers me.

    I've blended six other points here. The need for plants that are capable of surviving in what I'll call a challenged environment, one that is faced with a little more air pollution, drought, pestilence, all the diseases that we currently face and new ones that maybe we haven't seen or realized before. Traditional breeding has helped dramatically in this area over my lifetime. The Plant Genome Initiative will be a key to giving me the yields necessary to support that population that I've referred to in the prior statement.

    On to the environmental aspects of what you're going to do, or what your funding efforts may do for us. Brown water, contamination with phosphate fertilizers, with nitrogen fertilizers, and so on. On my farm, there are 4,600 large births, mammal births per year, of a pound or slightly over that. We have a high concern with high quality water here, roughly equivalent to what should be in a maternity ward in a large major city hospital. I cannot afford to have contaminated water, as could anyone else in this Nation, or the world. So this effort would also help in those areas.

    The nutritional quality that I spoke of earlier, the protein, the intrinsic values, the starch qualities, we have funded—Dr. Jay Langene is characterizing starch for us at Iowa State University, specific genes blending, when the genome map is completed. So that as we complete the map, we'll have materials to insert.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I have seen the value of coming up with intrinsic values of corns firsthand. In Mexico, they are using protein supplementation, for pediatric corn moss to use in tortillas. This would be something that wouldn't decrease, excuse me, faced with doing, had we provided or been able to provide them with a higher quality protein corn.

    With that, I say that I'll terminate here. This program is worthy of a Manhattan-style project. It requires the resources and the power of government to coordinate and to help fund those things that we individually have not been able to do in pass years. It's a huge program. I don't wish to bring in the old Manhattan project but Paul Ehrlich had the population bomb and this would be one of those things to help us diffuse that bomb. It's also a near cinch for success. The Plant Genome is one of those projects that, if it failed, I'd be shocked. I don't know. I can't conceive of how it could possibly fail. At the Iowa Corn Promotion Board we funded over 200 research projects and only had four of them that met any relative success. I don't know how to personally guarantee that this would be that successful, or 100 percent success, but it's as close to a success as I can see us getting.

    In conclusion, I found a Henri Fabre's quote about in 1912, I believe, ''no man qualifies as a statesman who is ignorant of the problems of wheat.'' And I took the liberty of fiddling around with it a little bit and I said, ''No person is a States person who cannot see the potentials of the plant genome.''

    And I, also, in wrapping a second or third time, recognize the potential you did in last year's funding programs recognize the potential of this Plant Genome and with that I applaud you and we encourage you to continue this program and expand it where possible. Thank you.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. All right, do you have a question Mrs. Meek?

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. Just a comment, the business is of interest to me, coming from the Agriculture Subcommittee and yet looking at it from. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer I went out for U.S. AID and collected corn maze in the fall. Corn was provided to them and they then submitted it for collection. It was kind of fun. It was interesting. It is fascinating science and it's farmers like you that have made Elvis Huxley and Paul Erhlich and Thomas Malthus look a little silly over the years. I hope you keep it going.

    Mr. BOEDING. We do too.

    Mr. WALSH. We need you to do it.

    Mr. BOEDING. We'll have to do it as a team this time because, as I said, the population explosion, or the population increases are very rapid every year, and 30 years is not that far off.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Boeding, I might mention, just so that it's a part of the record. Normally this funding, the Genome Project, and something like this would go through the Agriculture Subcommittee. It's fundamentally an agriculture research effort. It should be noted, if you haven't noted already, that beyond Mr. Walsh, Senator Bond has played a very, very significant role in all this. And, indeed, in our last go around this was his baby and certainly a lot of credit is deserved there.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. BOEDING. We do heartily thank them for that, and we do recognize that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks for being with us.

    Mr. BOEDING. Thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Howard Silver, who is the Executive Director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations. Dr. Silver?

    Mr. SILVER. Good to see you again.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Nice to see you again.

    Mr. SILVER. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I'm Howard Silver. I'm the executive director of COSSA, Consortium of Social Science Associations, which represents over 100 professional associations, scientific societies, universities, and research institutes concerned with the promotion of, and funding for, research and the social behavioral and economic sciences. I'm also proud to serve, Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Coalition for National Science, whose name has been invoked already this morning. CNSF is an ad hoc, umbrella organization of over 70 groups in the social, behavioral, physical and natural sciences, engineering, higher education, and the industrial world dedicated to ensuring enhanced support to maintain the National Science Foundation has a premier basic science agency in the world.

    On May 20th, the NSF will sponsor an exhibition at which 30 scientific societies and universities will display the results of NSF supported research, to provide an opportunity to engage scientists, educators, and students in discussions of their important studies, and we hope you and your colleagues will be able to join us in the Rayburn basement from 4:30 to 7:30.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. SILVER. I want to express COSSA and CNSF's appreciation for the Subcommittee's past strong support for NSF. As always, you face difficult choices among competing programs and interests in a constrained budget situation. Yet it appears the national consensus is formed on the critical need for enhanced Federal support for basic research. President Clinton has called for the largest increase ever for NSF. As you noted earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Speaker has argued an investment in science should be a priority. Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and 106 national organizations have called for doubling the national investment in science.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And thus COSSA believes, and CNSF, that investing in NSF research and education efforts will help shape this country's future economic well-being and national security, and strongly recommends the 10 percent increase for NSF's Fiscal 1999 appropriation requested by NSF and endorsed by CNSF. I have attached the CNSF budget document to my testimony, and I believe it provides the justifications for this increase.

    Let me talk a little bit now about basic research in the SBE sciences. Dr. Kraut earlier mentioned the numbers in the proposed budget, and like him, we are excited about the proposed increases. The research in these sciences continues to examine the evermore complex and human dimensions of issues, and generates new knowledge and insight to help us understand human commonalities and human differences. The research portfolio is diverse and supports sciences of enormous intellectual excitement and substantial societal importance.

    In many ways, the social sciences are becoming laboratory sciences. Experimental economists are studying the dynamic behavior of markets. In his laboratory at California Institute of Technology, Charles Plott has examined the behavior of individuals and markets and how they lead to speculative bubbles followed by crashes. In other laboratory settings, different economists are conducting experiments testing theories of inflation and international trade. Political scientists use laboratory settings to test theories of agenda setting and committee decision making, while sociologists study how status hierarchies emerge in newly formed groups. There have been direct societal benefits to these experiments. In Plott's lab, the Federal Communications Commission tested the highly lucrative broadband communication spectrum auction design. And from those experiments other applications include different methods of allocating space and time on the space shuttle, and allocating slots at airports.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We heard earlier about NSF's new thrust in knowledge of distributive intelligence. Let me point out one other area that we're happy they are including in the KDI initiative. In echoing NIH's efforts on the Human Genome Project, NSF has included a legal, ethical, and societal implications effort as part of KDI, such issues as intellectual property rights, scientific publications, data security and integrity, balancing the need for universal access against protection from disclosure of private information to unauthorized individuals are all part of the picture as we increase the capabilities to gather and access information.

    I'd also like to say a word about the Education and Human Resources Director, COSSA asked the Subcommittee to support the proposed increase for research, evaluation and communication division as part of the overall increase. As we know from the Subcommittee, there's a strong need to find out why Americans students perform well at the fourth grade level and not so well as they move up to the eighth and twelfth grades.

    In conclusion, we urge the Subcommittee to continue its support for a U.S. science policy that focuses on the physical and natural behavioral and social aspects of what it will mean to function in a technologically oriented society still dominated by interactions among human beings. In his new book, social biologist E.O. Wilson posits the notion of consilience, which he defines as ''the interlocking of causal explanations among disciplines.'' He suggests that we need ''an explanatory integration not just of the natural sciences but also of the social sciences and humanities.'' Many years ago at a COSSA Annual Meeting, Thomas F. Malone, now Distinguished University Scholar at North Carolina State University, and a meteorologist by training, talked about what he calls a ''grand convergence'' of the social and behavioral sciences and the natural and physical sciences. And you see that happening all over the place.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thus, any fundamental science policy must include significant investments to explain the behaviors of human beings as they interact with each other and with their social, political, economic, and technological environment. To maintain the United States as a world leader in science, economic prosperity, and as the beacon of democracy, enhanced resources devoted to gaining increased knowledge about humans and their communities must be a priority.

    The NSF remains a central actor to support the conduct of this research and, therefore, must receive adequate funds to carry out these important activities for the Nation, and the proposed increase of 10 percent will satisfy that requirement, and we hope the Subcommittee will grant it.

    Thank you for your time.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Silver. Mrs. Meek, by chance, questions?

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Walsh.

    Mr. WALSH. No questions, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir, we thank you for being with us.

 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, let me go back to the top of the list and see if by chance if a representative is going to be present from the American Federation of Government Employees, is that person here? Okay, calling once, calling twice, we'll get to third here in a while. Let's see, Dr. Mary Margaret Overbey, the Director of Government Relations for the American Anthropological Association, who has been waiting patiently. Welcome back.

    Ms. OVERBEY. Thank you. I'm presenting my testimony on behalf of the American Association of Physical Anthropological Association, the Society for American Archaeology, and American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Basically we're supporting a 10 percent increase for NSF with the $2.8 billion for research and $150 million allotted for social behavioral and economic sciences research.

    I want to use my time basically to let the research speak for itself. I'd like to give you some examples of cultural anthropology research, biological and anthropology research, and archaeology research that have been funded by NSF and that are currently ongoing. And the point is that these, each of these studies that's advancing our knowledge that also have evoked a lot of interest among people, the American people. So there's been a lot of media attention to all of these projects.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The first one I'd like to talk about is a study of secondary students down in Miami, in Dade County, who are in poor disadvantaged neighborhoods looking at risk factors. What causes students in their situation to succeed at school? And how do they overcome at risk factors to succeed in life? And basically what they have found to date is that strong social relations in the family, and also among peers and in the churches, do have a strong effect, and a positive effect on the students so that students are able to overcome at risk factors. This is still an ongoing project. It's going to be long-term so he'll follow these students beyond school, jobs, and college. But it has already attracted private funding from Carnegie Corporation and Andrew Mellon Foundation.

    There's an archeological project that is taking place down, 150 miles southwest of El Paso, Texas, by Robert Hard and his colleagues at the University of Texas, San Antonio. And in this site, what they have found is really the first existence of settled agricultural village 3,000 years ago. Previous scientists have felt that the only time we could find this level of agriculture and settled villages was 1,500 years ago. He has pushed this back several. This is during the Archaic period that most people in the northeastern United States were hunting, gathering bands just roving about, but he affirmed a settled village that supported between 100 and 1,000 people, cultivating maize and squash.

    Mark Stoneking at Pennsylvania State University has extracted the first authentic DNA from fossil hominid, and also obtained the first sequence of mitochondrial DNA from this fossil. And this is the first Neanderthal fossil that was found in Germany in 1856. What Mark Stoneking's work is looking at is the ancestral relations, are there ancestral relations with modern humans. Scientists had guessed that the Neanderthal was related and so he tested that by looking at the number of mutations in the mitochondrial sequence. And in humans there are only 7 to 8 mutations, or differences in that sequence. What he found in comparing the Neanderthal DNA sequence with the humans was that there were 27 to 28 differences so he concluded that the Neanderthal are not ancestral to modern humans.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    NSF funding also enabled Kristin Hawkes and her colleagues at the University of Utah to look at the role of post-menopausal women in society and in the development of culture. Hawkes has been working among the Hadza in Tanzania, they're a modern hunting gathering group that, you know, roam in Africa. And what she found is that the older women were producing the most food. They were forging for the vegetables that produced the most food in the village. And what the older woman would do would be distribute this food strategically to their daughters and their grandchildren. And if they didn't have a direct relation, to their nieces and their children. So, in essence, Hawkes is concluding that these women are perpetuating the band and their families along the line. And she thinks, in evolutionary terms, that if these older women really contributed to the development of culture. And one thing I did want to mention is that menopause itself is unique to humans, and they're trying to look at the ''why'' of menopause, why do they have menopause? So here, it's more of an explanation that menopause actually serves a purpose to release these women to take the time to forage and distribute.

    The final project I'd like to mention is one by Patrick Gannon, Arthur Fishberg and Ralph Holloway, looking at the areas of the brain associated with human language. This is the planum temporale, here's a picture. It's located in the left hemisphere of the brain. It's where language is located, and also musical ability. And neuroscientists have recently found, it's the planum temporale where the perfect pitch is located. So the ability, which is a rare ability, to be able to discern notes separate from any context of music is located in the planum temporale. Scientists always had also felt that this area was unique to humans. And what Gannon and his associates found is that it's found in chimps. So Chimpanzees actually do have this left hemisphere, planum temporale developed, which leads us to believe that language ability in chimps is greater than scientists have previously thought.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And one thing I did want to mention is Gannon's research itself, this is extensive, these are citations of the media coverage that he received on this. There are three pages of citations, everything from The New York Times and The Post, to Jay Leno, and just a lot of radio and TV. BBC has done something on this too. So there's been a lot of attention to this.

    So my purpose in letting the research speak for itself is that to let you know that NSF is funding good research, that it is advancing our knowledge, and that it really does intrigue the American people and does advance their understanding of how we got to where we are today, and their understanding of how we could improve the world in which we live.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Overbey, thank you very much for being with us. I got your pitch. [Laughter.]

    Ms. OVERBEY. Okay, thank you.

    Mrs. MEEK. I'm pleased to see that Mr. Neanderthal is not ancestral to humans because I thought just the opposite.

    Ms. OVERBEY. Well, that's right. And I think there's been a history of saying there is, but there's been questions as to what the relationship is. So this is really furthering that knowledge that yes, probably it is not——

    Mrs. MEEK. Pleased to see your proud of your research.

 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. OVERBEY. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Arthur Jaffe with the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics. Mr. Jaffe, it's good to see you again.

    Mr. JAFFE. Thank you. I'm pleased to be here again after two years.

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Arthur Jaffe, I'm President of the American Mathematical Society, the Landon T. Clay Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, and Chair of the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics. That Board is a collaboration of three societies with combined membership of over 57,000 mathematicians, and I welcome the opportunity to be here.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Let me start by thanking the Committee for your support for the NSF over the years. I hope for your continued support this year. JPBM wholeheartedly endorses full funding for the 1999 budget request for NSF which will provide a significant 10 percent increase. We believe mathematics science and engineering represents a top priority, along with our children, for the future of our country. The NSF has seen no real budget increase since 1995, and was part of the overall one-third decline in the percent of R&D funding is the percent of GDP over 30 years. We feel this short changes our most promising investment in the future.

    Given the extraordinary importance of the NSF's mission, the need for full appropriation transcends any particular budget mechanisms. The importance has been expressed by a bipartisan group of members in the House and the Senate. The request is consistent with authorizations in the House, with the authorization moving through the Senate, and with the Senate's budget resolution which assumes full funding for 1999. The CNSF concurred, endorses the proposed budget. Furthermore, a coalition of over 100 presidents of scientific societies, including the three JPBM presidents, issued a unified statement calling for a renewal of science funding over the next decade. These societies have over 3 million members signed it, and you probably have seen the unified statement which was issued last October.

    I believe it's widely understood that today's prosperity is a consequence of our past 30 year investment in science. Our economy relies, and our economic security relies on tomorrow's technology. These technologies will evolve from today's research. Our strength as a world power relies on our ability to educate our population in mathematics and in science. In the NSF there is a prominent share of the responsibility to fund it.

 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We're especially supportive of the NSF's proposed budget of $114 million in the division of mathematical sciences. The Foundation has identified and documented a special need for growth in mathematics. A panel appointed by the NSF presents this material in a March 1998 study illustrating the inadequate support of mathematics, along with the increasing role of mathematics as the enabling discipline for all fields of science.

    I'd like to give some specific examples. In my written testimony, I talked about a number of examples. They range from the basic research leading to 1997 Nobel Prize in Economics, that was research in probability theory, and it's had a profound impact on today's financial markets and on risk analysis to new mathematics behind modern medical imaging. New mathematical methods of semi-conductor designs that have the potential to impact that business while computer simulations changed aircraft designs. New symmetries in the laws of physics, the discovery of these led to dependent numerical calculations in specialized field of mathematics. But there are new ways to break and make codes.

    As explained in a recent congressional briefing, mathematicians devised new encryption schemes, and they also devised new tools to break them. The symmetries in physics are not unrelated to the tools that I'm talking about here. This past week, we learned that digital cellular phone encryption, which was believed to be secure, has been broken.

    The NSF also provides the Federal funding that enables professional mathematicians to improve education. One successful program, the research experiences for undergraduates, links students in summer programs to mathematicians doing frontier research. In a complementary fashion, the graduate fellowships provide incentives and recognition for young scientists to continue to do research in their field. The postdoctoral fellowship programs extends the training at a crucial time when the recipients make the delicate transition from initial discovery to world leadership. It's through this package of support from undergraduate to leading researcher that we shepherd our country's next generation of Fields medal winners and Nobel prize laureates.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But while U.S. graduate education shines, our schools do not. You've heard the results of the TIMSS, or the Third International Mathematics and Science Study which show U.S. students from approximately average in the fourth grade to the very bottom in 12th grade. This is not only a case in averages but even when measuring the top 10 percent of student performance, this is totally unacceptable.

    We urge the Subcommittee to support the request for the Joint Mathematic initiatives proposed in cooperation with the Department of Education. With less than 5 percent of the total R&D budget, the NSF assumes major responsibility for many critical components of science. I urge you again to provide the 10 percent requested in 1999 to the NSF.

    And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to second the invitation to you and members of the Subcommittee to attend the Fourth Annual CNSF Exhibition and reception on May 20th. There you can see first-hand the sample of research and you can talk with some of the researchers whose ideas produce these advances.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Jaffe.

    Questions, questions?

    Mr. WALSH. Mr. Jaffe, it doesn't relate to appropriations but you raised the issue of the fall-off in math scores and abilities of our kids from fourth grade through twelfth. What do you surmise? We have the best post-secondary educational system on earth, but secondary education is not on par with the rest of the world. What's going on, do you think?
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. JAFFE. I understand it's a very complicated problem.

    Mr. WALSH. Well, you're a mathematician it should be easy for you. [Laughter.]

    Mr. JAFFE. First, we have a problem with the social status, a social problem, social status of teachers, their pay. We don't necessarily attract, of course there are exceptions, the best people by and large into the profession and therefore it's perhaps not a surprise that they are not fully acquainted with the content materials that they keep. I think there are a number of programs to work with teachers to train them more in the content, and I feel that content in mathematics and the sciences is very important to give to the students. Those programs have been a very great success.

    Mr. WALSH. Can the NSF support that activity?

    Mr. JAFFE. The NSF does partially support that activity. They have training programs, they're joint programs with the Department of Education as well.

    Mr. WALSH. When NSF was in I suggested an idea that, similar to the Peace Corps approach to things where the AmeriCorp, you take some of your best graduate students and you send them into school districts to teach, not only the kids, but to teach the teachers, and to try to develop a level of expertise at the high schools that wasn't previously there.

 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. JAFFE. Right. We have programs, there's a program at Harvard to bring in teachers from neighboring area schools to help them with the material. There are summer programs at major university sites, other places, that especially train teachers in mathematics. This is extremely important, we'd like to send students, some of our students go out to the area schools but it just can't be a volunteer process, we have to have a program in place. And it's not a problem that's going to be solved overnight.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Jaffe, a very complex subject but nonetheless, lest we mislead anybody who might be listening, the Subcommittee has in the past expressed very strong support for the work of NSF, and I anticipate that we will be doing the same as you go forward. But nonetheless we should all make note of the fact that never but never has more than 10 cents on the dollar for educational purposes come from the Federal Government. It is produced by way of local resources, State resources, the private sector, tuitions, et cetera. We do love to give 10 cents and tell you everything you got to be doing through NSF—[laughter]—hopefully, we're not going to do that.

    Mr. JAFFE. I totally agree. [Laughter]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us. Please wander by the Kennedy School and say, ''hello,'' to our colleague, Mickey Edwards, one of these days, would you?

    Mr. JAFFE. Surely will, thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, is John Neylan here? John? The American Society of Transplant Physicians. Really much of that work is carried on by way of the VA, but, welcome.

    Mr. NEYLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your testimony will be included in the record and we appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. NEYLAN. I am John Neylan, medical director of Kidney Transplant Patients at Emery University, and I'm president-elect of the American Society of Transplant Physicians. The ASTP, which has no Government support, is comprised of over 1,100 physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are actively engaged in research and the practice of transplantation medicine and immunobiology. The ASTP represents the majority of professionals involved in the field of transplantation in the United States.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Today, my testimony will focus on Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Administration and its transplant program. Since 1961, this program has provided more than 7,000 solid organ transplants (over 100 a year) to U.S. veterans in need. In addition, VA funded research has made important contributions, both to our understanding of diseases which may lead to organ failure, as well as to those basic mechanisms regulating the immune system which may be critical to the success of organ transplantation. Although VA initiatives and transplantation have provided many U.S. veterans with the critical gift of life, the program could be broadened in the area of research to more effectively serve our veterans and the overall health of the Nation.

    Over the last 30 years, transplantation of solid organs has moved from experimental to accepted therapy, with over 20,000 performed in 1997 alone. The success of this procedure has improved greatly and now almost all solid organ recipients enjoy anywhere from 83 to 97 percent survivals in one year. Much of the success can be attributed to basic research initiatives in immunobiology funded by previous Federal appropriations. Our better understanding of the body's response to foreign proteins has led to countless other breakthroughs in all areas in medical science. However, this success has brought with it new challenges.

    Mr. Chairman, during the next hour four new names will join those over 56,000 individuals in this country waiting for a solid organ transplant. And by the time I get to Atlanta this evening, 10 individuals will have died because the wait for the transplant was too long. It's unfortunate and absolutely unnecessary, but the sad fact is that we as a Nation are not living up to our potential. Too many families are turning down the option of organ donation.

 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    In December 1997, the Administration launched a national organ and tissue donation initiative to encourage more families to discuss and understand their loved ones wishes in regard to donation. This may help in reducing family refusal which is the number one cause of the loss of potential donors today. Therefore, the ASTP urges this subcommittee to provide additional resources from Fiscal Year 1999 to ensure the success of the administration's initiative and other federally-initiated programs that enhance donor awareness and improve the public trust in the process.

    Research is also critical to all that occurs in the transplantation process. The ASTP believes that we are on the threshold of many important scientific breakthroughs in areas of transplantation research, including the better understanding of the mechanisms of organ rejection, improvements in immunosuppression, the achievement of a drug-free immunologic tolerance, and the potential use of animal organs and tissues, xenotransplantation. Because of this, the ASTP agrees with the Friends of the VA that the Subcommittee should provide a Fiscal Year 1999 VA research appropriation of at least $325 million, the amount necessary to sustain new initiatives VA is implementing in Fiscal Year 1998 and to fully implement new initiatives in Fiscal Year 1999, such as research in the area of solid organ transplantation.

    The VA currently supports research centers in a variety of areas, such as HIV, alcohol and kidney disease. These centers have successfully allowed for the advancement of knowledge in targeted areas as a result of the talented investigators that are assembled under one roof. By providing funds to operate additional research centers, focusing on areas such as solid organ transplantation, the VA could contribute even more effectively to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of disease and disability. By increasing Fiscal Year 1999 VA research appropriations to at least $325 million, the Department would also have the resources necessary to address a backlog of medical research, career development applications and increase awards to first time principal investigator applicants. Such an effort would work to ensure that the VA will be able to meet its need for highly trained investigators in all research disciplines and in all fields important to our U.S. veterans.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    For more than six decades, the VA system has made unique contributions to the health of the Nation's veterans, and to the entire country's medical, scientific, and health care efforts. The scientific community is on the verge of many new breakthroughs in the area of solid organ transplantation, and the ASTP believes that increased funding for VA research will greatly improve the lives of U.S. veterans while increasing the capacity for critical transplantation research for the entire Nation. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. We very much appreciate your making the effort to come here. It's very, very important that we recognize the value of the veterans' hospital locations associated with major research universities, the potential is endless in terms of improving the human condition, and we appreciate your work. Thank you.

    Mr. NEYLAN. Thank you, Chairman Lewis.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Paul Grogan, President of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. Mr. Grogan, welcome one more time.

    Mr. GROGAN. Mr. Chairman, one more time.

    Mr. LEWIS. Hi, there.

    Mr. GROGAN. Well, I'm going to offer you an interruption in the steady stream of scientists and physicians and mathematicians.

    Mr. LEWIS. Always happy to hear from HUD. [Laughter.]

    Mr. GROGAN. Talk about houses. I have to say I'm not sure following the Society of Transplant Physicians is a message about HUD or not, but thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to preface my brief remarks by bringing you what I think is very good news from the innercities of the country. As you know, Local Initiatives Support Corporation is a private organization supported by more than 2,000 corporations, foundations, and private individuals providing capital and expertise to innercity and rural development efforts nationwide. And we are seeing unmistakable signs of more and more turn around, particularly in innercity communities that have been depressed for a very, very long time. And I think that's significant because I think for the last 30 years or so, we've thought this cause was pretty hopeless. We've been very pessimistic about conditions in these communities which have bred an enormous amount of poverty and social pathology, and we really think things are starting to turn around very much as a consequences of the grassroots revitalization movement, not of actions of the Federal government but of the ordinary citizens taking matters into their own hands, organizing out of churches and block clubs, to take on problems and issues in their own communities. And there are now more than 2,000 of these groups renovating and building housing, bringing jobs back into the communities, working on health clinics, day care centers, anti-crime efforts.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It's really a spreading phenomenon that is based on the bedrock American attributes of self-help and partnership and tangible results. And private capital is fueling much of this. The Federal government has done a couple of important things. It's a short list of things but that magnifies their importance. One of them is not under the jurisdiction of this committee but I very much appreciate your decision, Mr. Chairman, to join as a sponsor of the two bills in the House that proposes to expand the low-income housing tax credit, which is, as you know, steers a lot of private capital to affordable housing.

    Two programs at HUD though have been very, very helpful: the HOME Program and the Community Development Block Grant. And I particularly want to focus on HOME, which has been of particularly utility to grassroots groups. Unlike a lot of programs that are so rule bound and prescriptive that they don't take account of this type of local initiative or the need to leverage private capital, home has really done a great job in being the kind of flexible, locally-driven resource that can be combined with private capital and can be molded to do a wide variety of housing programs that local communities want to do. The program is very well utilized. As you know, it is leveraging, for every dollar, $1.08 in private and other financing. We are just seeing this as really being part of the fuel that's driving this movement.

    Community Development Block Grant is also very, very important. In general, we would like to see HUD evolve into a flexible investor in local partnerships as opposed to the kind of institution that it has been. I applaud Secretary Cuomo's efforts to do that, but right now the programs that really make the strongest statement, and are of the most impact in this realm, are those two.

 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We very much appreciate your support last year in increasing somewhat the administration's proposal, and we would certainly urge you to do the same this year. I don't think we can underestimate what it might mean to our country if we came to believe that the innercities could really be revived. The tremendous burden that they have been on us, the source of really national embarrassment, and I think there is a tremendous opportunity where you see housing, where you see markets following housing, and the kind of citizen engagement that's rebuilding institutions—everything from PTAs to little leagues.

    We had the great pleasure of hosting a visit of the President to the South Bronx late last year. South Bronx has perhaps been emblematic in a very powerful way of the devastation of the innercities, and I think he was stunned, as was the media, to see the acres and acres of revitalization—really all wrought by the initiative of community organizations to provide the capital, but very much helped and catalyzed by this short list of Federal programs.

    So we've got something going here that's working. The HOME and CDBG are relatively small programs. Everyone says we appreciate the tough choices you have to make. I don't think we really do. We want you to do what we're proposing, but I think we can show that the leverage on these Federal efforts is fantastic, and we've really drawn private capital in, which is what's finally led to restoring these markets.

    Thank you very much for having me here this morning.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Grogan, very much.

    I must say that programs like the House that Congress Built—and half the House now is going to be involved in that symbolic effort; lots of private capital flowing, volunteer efforts—very, very important, working together in this urban centers. And I, frankly, think the goal is to revitalize those urban centers, and we appreciate not only your testimony, but your help.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. GROGAN. Thank you. We're working very closely with Habitat across the country. It's one of the great stories that's part of this.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes, it is.

    Thank you very much for being with us.

    Mrs. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to Mr. Grogan, I've been working with this many, many years. It worked in its revival. There has been some change to these communities. We just need more of that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, back to the National Science Foundation, Dr. Wadi Suki, president of the American Society for Nephrology.

    Dr. SUKI. In addition, our Nation has renewed commitment to allocating increased resources for medical research, and the VA should not be forgotten, and at the minimum the research program that serves our Nation's veterans deserves a level of increase similar to that of other federally-funded medical research programs. Therefore, our Society supports the appropriation of at least $325 million for VA medical research.

    When you think in terms of how much this represents, if you would consider how much the VA has spent for health care services, $272 million spent last year on research in the VA comes out to only 1.5 percent of total expenditures on health care, which is really a very small amount. It is my view and the view of members of our Society that investment in research is the only real opportunity we have to reduce enormous costs to the VA, not to mention human suffering composed by chronic health conditions.

    The VA R&D is poised to realize its vision of the future with additional funding for medical research to be well-positioned to help the VA system meet the challenge of a changing health care environment while contributing to advances in the Nation's knowledge of disease.

    The recruitment and retention of the best and the brightest to pursue careers in academic investigative methodology has been and will continue to be our Society's foremost goal. The VA Research Realignment Advisory Committee found that the VA is not satisfactorily recruiting and sustaining the next generation of outstanding clinical investigators. Our Society believes that the major obstacle to achieving the goals of the cure for and the prevention of kidney disease is the difficulty in the current environment of attracting the most talented young individuals to pursue careers in research.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    By your subcommittee appropriating $325 million for VA medical research in Fiscal Year 1999, implementation of new research training and career development programs can occur in the VA, and the VA will be able to address the backlog of medical research career development complications, and increase awards to first time physician investigator applications.

    Increasing career development awards enhances the VA's ability to attract and retain high quality physician investigators for a career in the VA. Considering that 75 percent of VA researchers are the physicians who provide medical care for our veterans, the quality of the health care received by our veterans is directly correlated to the VA's ability to provide funds for a career in biomedical research.

    The Veterans' Administration has made profound contributions in areas related to nephrology, research on diabetes, which is the foremost cause of kidney failure in this country. Research in this area conducted in the VA has advanced our knowledge in how to retard the progression of kidney disease in diabetics and how to prevent it. Research in the area of hypertension, which is the second commonest cause of kidney failure, has also advanced knowledge and this research has been carried out in the VA.

    Most research breakthroughs in this country come from investigator initiated projects. If the VA research budget is funded at $325 million for Fiscal Year 1999, investigator initiated projects could increase by at least 10 percent. In addition, years of funding shortfalls have prevented the VA from conducting much needed renovation of VA research facilities. Many VA research facilities are housed in buildings erected in the post-World War II era. Renovations need to occur to accommodate the equipment and electrical venting safety and plumbing systems required for today's cutting edge research.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    While our Society recognizes the difficult task that Congress has in choosing between Federal programs, these choices should not come at the expense of those who have fought for our freedoms and for the freedom of peoples around the world. Therefore, to ensure that research opportunities are not lost and that veterans continue to receive high quality medical care, the American Society of Nephrology again urges this subcommittee to support a Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation of $325 million for VA medical research.

    This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Suki.

    Mrs. MEEK. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, and to Dr. Suki, I've been a strong proponent of medical research at the VA since I've been on this subcommittee and I do hope that we can improve this as I've perceived it, the medical research part of the VA's budget, and I do hope that we can substantially improve it.

    Dr. SUKI. We thank you for your support.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Suki, we all, especially on a day like today where you have a variety of mix of witnesses coming forward, find, probably conclude that the term ''lobbyist,'' is not necessarily a bad term. They come in many shape and forms. I was struck when I was home over these last couple of weeks that there's a fellow whose building a new home down the street from me, and I haven't had a chance to meet him but I've noted that when going by a relatively new Jeep, it's a young family. And I've learned that this fellow is a nephrologist and I have no idea whether he's a part of your Society or not but one of these days I'll probably find out. [Laughter.]
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I urge you to find out who he is. [Laughter.]

    Dr. SUKI. He probably works at the Research Institute, something like that; he looked like it. Thank you.

    Dr. SUKI. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate your being here.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, we're going to stay on that same track for just a moment. Is Dr. Bursell with Joslin Diabetes Center present?

    Dr. BURSELL. Yes.
 Page 70       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. The seat next to you.

    Dr. BURSELL. It's great to be here again at the Committee. I'm going to talk to you about a diabetes project. It's a collaborative project that we had proposed last Spring with the Veterans' Administration. The demonstration project will be the Institute's pilot programs for detection, prevention, and care in two regions: Hawaii, through the Tripler Army Medical Center, in collaboration with both the DOD and the VA out there; and in New England, through the VA's VISN–1 region. The objectives involve training and technology transfer of Joslin's expertise using telemedicine infrastructures, personnel, and employment patient bases of the Department of Defense and Veterans' Affairs.

    The idea is to basically facilitate patient's access to a program of diabetes care and prevention and education, hopefully to reduce some of the complications from diabetes, such as blindness or kidney disease.

    We'd like to thank you, the members of the Committee here, and especially Congressman Nethercutt for the support we received in Fiscal Year 1998 through the VA/HUD appropriations. But I'm going to focus on today is two aspects of the project, primarily the status report and a request for our second year funding.

    The two objectives of the project are screening for diabetes among DOD and VA patient populations in New England and Hawaii using innovative technology which requires nothing more than shining a light into the eye and determine whether or not you have diabetes, and implementing a program of improved diabetes management and education using the telemedicine platform for the DOD and VA patient populations in New England and Hawaii.
 Page 71       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We have reached an understanding, with the support of the DOD and VA policy program personnel on implementation on the work plan to report to the Committee last year. And by September 30th of 1998, we will have accomplished the following: one, a completion of phase one studies and implementation of phase two studies in the New England region, and implementation of phase one studies at the Tripler Medical Center in Hawaii. And basically this is an evaluation to determine how cost effective, both for the patient, and cost effective in terms of getting care to the patients the telemedicine intervention is and how it impacts on the standard practice of diabetes. And again deployment of three remote examination sites in the New England area.

    In year 2002, we will have accomplished the following objectives: providing DOD and VA diabetes patients cost effective access to the benefits of annual eye exams, diagnosis, treatments that are necessary to reduce risk to vision, and other significant complications of diabetes, such as nephrology and heart disease; to develop the utilization of a quick, efficient and easily acceptable method of screening for diabetes in remote sites; to demonstrate efficient and effective methods to improve the metabolic control of patients with diabetes.

    Today Joslin has expended approximately $2 million, without any reimbursement from Federal funds. This has been a particular challenge for us as a nonprofit institution and the reason was we weren't aware that at each stage of Department of Defense review, and decision-making, that essentially the funds would be allocated for administrative purposes. So the total DOD and VA assessment over the two year project period has exceeded $2 million. And the bare bones budget we submitted last year did not include resource allocations for partners in DOD/VA so that in this stage of the project we have very little money. [Laughter.]
 Page 72       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    There's a fair amount of angst associated with it. The DOD officials have recognized Joslin's plight and have indicated they will support a second year budget of $6.4 million to assure that we can proceed efficiently.

    Mr. Chairman, in order to implement this project properly, and conduct the project in the manner and under the terms established by the DOD and VA, we will require an appropriation of $6.4 million in Fiscal Year 1999 for the diabetes research project, the National Security Subcommittee initially funded in Fiscal Year 1998.

    And this concludes my statement and if you have any questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Bursell, if you would, as we go forward through the conference process try and help us focus on this to make sure that we do get the interaction that we want from the Department.

    Mr. BURSELL. That would be my pleasure.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much.

    Dr. BURSELL. Thank you very much.

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

 Page 73       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Dale Keairns, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Hello, welcome back.

    Mr. KEAIRNS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for welcoming me. I'm Dale Keairns. I'm a manager of the chemical and environmental area at Westinghouse, and I'm pleased to be with you this morning on behalf of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, AIChE. AIChE is a nonprofit professional association of more than 58,000 chemical engineers that provides leadership in advancing the chemical engineering profession. And our message today is really one of supporting the Administration's request for the NSF budget and particularly the $400 million request for the Engineering Directorate.

    The research conducted by chemical engineers in academia and industry plays an important role in bringing new technologies to fruition in industries as varied as energy, paper, food, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and many others. NSF support is essential to developing new technologies for these industries as it provides over 55 percent of all Federal support for academic research in chemical engineering. AIChE supports the Administration's budget request of $3.8 billion for NSF, and we particularly support the $2.8 billion request for NSF research activities, 12 percent more than last year.
 Page 74       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Within NSF's research activities, AIChE believes that engineering research deserves increased emphasis. Accordingly, we believe Congress should provide no less than the $400 million budget request for the NSF Engineering Directorate. While Congress in 1986 granted engineering equal status with science in furthering NSF's testimony mission, the Engineering Directorate continues to represent only about 10 percent of the NSF budget. Considering the Engineering Directorate's integral role in advancing NSF's mission, we believe the relative size of the Engineering Directorate, as well as engineering research in other directorates should be increased.

    The term ''engineering'' is normally associated with application oriented activities. NSF's Engineering Directorate, however, supports fundamental engineering research, as certainly you are well aware. In a critical, but often overlooked function of NSF, technologies such as environmental benign manufacturing, parallel computing, robotics, can trace their origins to NSF's support of fundamental engineering research.

    NSF's Engineering Directorate supports a wide range of value added activities. The program supports individual investigator research in focused disciplines, and multi-disciplinary research conducted in small groups in research centers, including the engineering research centers and university cooperative research centers. It also supports engineering education activities, the SBIR program, the cross-directorate initiatives, such as the Next Generation Internet. Additionally, the Engineering Directorate spearheads efforts to strengthen ties between university and industry researchers through programs like Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry, or GOALI program.

 Page 75       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    While the breadth of these programs is one of the Directorate's programs main assets, sufficient funding is needed to maintain the varied missions.

    Mr. Chairman, let me quickly highlight two of these programs which we believe should receive high priority. The Engineering Research Center program brings together cross-disciplinary teams of science and engineering researchers and students in university-based centers to address fundamental issues in technological areas relevant to industry and of high importance to the Nation. This collaborative systems-oriented approach leverages limited resources and fosters a two-way flow of ideas between universities and industry on mutually beneficial research. Industrial and other partners match NSF's investment by about 3 to 1. A recent NSF assessment of these centers found that firms employing former ERC graduate students graded the students higher than their peers in several areas.

    With regard to the GOALI program, this has been getting high marks for placing faculty and students in industrial settings to work on the conceptual phase of the research endeavor. Such interactions strengthen intellectual connections that can open up new areas for university research and foster a mutual understanding of the cultural differences between academia and industry.

    While we recognize the budget gaps under which this committee must work, we believe that investing in NSF, including fundamental engineering research, strengthens the U.S. pool of technical talent and long-term economic growth at the same time.

    The chemical engineering profession, the chemical engineers of AIChE look forward to continuing to provide our expertise on research programs that impact our profession and the Nation's technological strength.
 Page 76       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I really appreciate this opportunity to be with you today.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Keairns.

    Mr. KEAIRNS. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate it very much.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Dr. Martha Sloan, the American Association of Engineering Societies, the 1998 AAES Chair. Welcome, welcome back.

    Dr. SLOAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. My name is Martha Sloan. I am Chair of the American Association of Engineering Societies, a federation of more than one million engineers and 25 engineering societies. I'm also a professor of electrical engineering at Michigan Technological University.
 Page 77       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    As you know, for nearly 50 years, NSF has been a leader in supporting the highest quality research for our country. NSF has a long history of success in accomplishing that mission. It assisted in developing lasers, superconducting materials, the Internet, GPS, and many others. NSF is unique because it does not support a specific mission-oriented type of research, such as space research at NASA, or medical research at NIH. Instead, NSF supports a broad spectrum of basic and applied science and engineering research, primarily at universities.

    AAES strongly supports the Administration's request to increase the National Science Foundation's funding by 10 percent to $3.8 billion for Fiscal Year 1999. This will allow NSF to better support world-class science and engineering research.

    NSF provides support for pre-competitive engineering. The need for this type of support becomes obvious when one thinks of the research continuum. A scientist explores a question and may discover a new scientific law. An engineer takes that knowledge and applies it to a process or application. NSF supports engineering research before a process or application is ready to be used by the private sector. This, of course, is what pre-competitive engineering means.

    An example from NSF's Engineering Directorate is a novel optical method of document verification. This application could eventually help to prevent credit card fraud. The research is on optical data and coding, and a newly discovered polymeric film for optical data storage. Photos or fingerprints could be placed upon film on the credit card to verify the use of identity.

 Page 78       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    NSF provides about one-quarter of all Federal support for basic research at U.S. universities, but NSF is also heavily involved with education supporting math and science education at all levels. These efforts are helping train our Nation's future scientists and engineers who will supply power for the Nation's economic interests.

    This year NSF is launching a new program called the Action Agenda for Systemic Engineering Education Reform. This program seeks to develop significant advances in teaching and learning methods, curriculum, and networking. This helps faculty to adopt new approaches to implement improvements in engineering education.

    One factor vital to the success of NSF is stringent peer review. Subjecting research proposals to peer review is the optimal way for NSF to ensure that only the best proposals are funded.

    Many economic experts, such as Paul Romer of Stanford, have said that up to 50 percent of the growth in our Nation's GDP can be attributed to technological innovation. Much of this growth resulted from Government supported research, particularly from NSF. The economic competitiveness of the U.S. is directly tied to our ability to innovate and improve technology. Our country's ability to compete in the 21st century depends on the investments we make today. The proposed 10 percent increase in science and engineering research funding will let us help to maintain the U.S.'s technological and economic dominance.

    Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Ms. Sloan, appreciate your being with us.
 Page 79       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. We're going to very briefly shift gears one more time. Mr. Wicker has a difficult and conflicting schedule and he has a guest he'd like to introduce. So I call upon Dr. Melvin Ray of Mississippi State University, representing the Coalition of EPSCoR. Mr. Wicker?

    Mr. WICKER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know we are pressed for time, and I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Chair today. It's my pleasure to introduce to the Committee, to the Subcommittee, Dr. Melvin C. Ray, of Mississippi State University. He is the Chair of the Mississippi EPSCoR Committee. He is not a constituent of mine. He resides in one of the counties which I share with Representative Pickering, and I can say that he's a wonderful participant in the faculty at Mississippi State University and a good citizen of the community. I think you will find his testimony on behalf of the EPSCoR program to be very enlightening.

 Page 80       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Ray, your entire testimony will be included in the record, and you may summarize it as you wish. Appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. RAY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Melvin Ray and Chairman of the Mississippi EPSCoR Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR States regarding the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.

    First, I'd like to thank Representative Wicker for his strong support of EPSCoR. From the very beginning of his service in the House, Congressman Wicker has understood the importance of building science and technology infrastructure in the State of Mississippi, as well as the Nation. And I thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. I hope you'd tell him to slow down on twisting my arm as much as he does. [Laughter.]

    Mr. RAY. EPSCoR, again, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research was established in the National Science Foundation due to a concern that our national research and development dollars was highly concentrated, and that it would benefit the Nation if more States could participate in conducting research that our Nation needs. EPSCoR has helped Mississippi and the other EPSCoR States improve their research capabilities. As a result, EPSCoR has expanded to other Federal agencies.

    The Mississippi EPSCoR program began in 1988. It has had an enormously positive impact within the State and the four research institutions: Jackson State University, The University of Southern Mississippi, The University of Mississippi, and, of course, Mississippi State. EPSCoR has had a positive tangible impact in Mississippi in four specific categories: it supports junior faculty, it provides training for students, it helps develop new programs, and it provides solid scientific results. Specific examples are included in my written testimony.
 Page 81       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Chairman, the EPSCoR Coalition asks the Subcommittee to support EPSCoR funding in the NSF, NASA, and EPA. NSF EPSCoR helps eligible States improve R&D competitiveness through three types of awards: the EPSCoR cooperative agreements which support infrastructure development; EPSCoR grants, which are essentially seed grants for new and improving technology for the States; and EPSCoR co-funding to accelerate movement of investigators into the regular NSF research programs.

    The Administration has requested $38.41 million for EPSCoR for Fiscal Year 1999. The Coalition for EPSCoR States respectfully requests the Subcommittee to appropriate $43.41 million. This figure will allow us to continue existing programs by increasing co-funding to the budget level of $15 million. We also ask the Committee to keep forth this effort to ensure that our States are included in the NSF high performance computing and networking efforts.

    As it relates to NASA EPSCoR—NASA EPSCoR provides seed funding to develop academic research programs, activities directed toward long-term self-sustaining naturally competitive capabilities in science and technology. The Administration requested level funding of $4.7 million in Fiscal Year 1998. However, more funds are needed if all EPSCoR States are to participate. For each additional $500,000 added above $4.7 million, another EPSCoR State will be able to participate in the NASA EPSCoR program. If NASA EPSCoR is to be effective, it is imperative that it remain a coherent headquartered effort, and not distributed to regional centers.

    As it relates to EPA EPSCoR—EPA EPSCoR remains the smallest of the EPSCoR programs. Congress provided $2.5 million for EPA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1998, and the administration has requested zero funded. EPA EPSCoR promotes nationally competitive environmental science research programs, and provides the EPA with needed high quality environmental research. More funds are needed if the EPA is to have a truly effective EPSCoR program. The Coalition of EPSCoR States requests $5 million for EPA EPSCoR in Fiscal Year 1999.
 Page 82       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I thank the Committee for the time today, and will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Ray. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No questions, but I'm encouraged.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Wicker, do you have questions?

    Mr. WICKER. Well, I realize that we're under a time constraint. I guess if you could just briefly tell us, perhaps, what your biggest frustration has been with the way the program is funded?

    Mr. LEWIS. EPA zero funding. [Laughter.]

    Mr. RAY. Exactly. In terms of the EPSCoR Coalition, the EPSCoR States, what we would like to see is, Congressman, that we could benefit our State and our citizens and be able to attract new business to the industry if the NASA EPSCoR program is funded at the $10 million level requested, and if the EPA was funded at $5 million level requested. That will allow the States, specifically, Mississippi, to have opportunity to participate in those programs. Because the funding levels are so low, the 18 States plus Puerto Rico are unable to participate. There's just not enough funding to go around.

    Mrs. MEEK. Doctor, what is the meaning, explain what this acronym means?
 Page 83       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. RAY. EPSCoR, EPSCoR is the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research.

    Mrs. MEEK. Oh, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks a lot, Dr. Ray, appreciate your being with us.

    [The information follows:]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Michael Reischman, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Mr. Reischman? Thank you for your patience.

    Mr. REISCHMAN. Good morning.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good morning.
 Page 84       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. REISCHMAN. My being from South Carolina, EPSCoR means a lot to us as well.

    Mr. LEWIS. I'm sure it does.

    Mr. REISCHMAN. It has its own unique problems but it's very, very beneficial to everyone.

    Mr. LEWIS. Great. I noticed that you already have summarized your testimony. We appreciate your presenting that as you would for the record.

    Mr. REISCHMAN. Thank you. I'm, as I said, Michael Reischman. I'm from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. I'm Chair of the Inter Council Committee on Federal R&D. I'm also a member of the Council on Education's NSF Task Force, and I'm accompanied by Dr. Wade from Rutgers University who is a similar member of that committee.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay.

    Mr. REISCHMAN. In introduction, I'd like to say that mechanical engineering profession is well-served by NSF, and by their support of developing basic knowledge, applying that knowledge in specific engineering processes, and also the educational activities that they pursue. The task force is, in general, and I'll keep my numbers to a minimum, very, very pleased with the almost 12 percent increase in engineering at NSF.

 Page 85       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    For engineering, in general, the development of efficient design manufacturing methodologies or products of all types is really the essence of our being globally competitive.

    With that in my mind, let me comment a little bit on all three of the areas. Basic knowledge—very pleased to see the continued focus on inter-disciplinary activities. For example, nanotechnologies and long-term deterioration of materials, both initiatives within engineering. Research there leads to understanding the aging effects on engineer structures and systems or, ultimately, how to develop smart structures and systems have an enormous impact downstream in the power generation industry, in the civil infrastructure we all enjoy day by day, in aircraft safety, in automotive efficiency, and in automotive safety.

    Biology based technology is another initiative we'd like to support. The research there is sort of at the intersection between biology and engineering. The potential for that research in the health care industry alone is enormous. Applications would include non-invasive drug delivery, the idea of highly efficient micro-miniaturized but robotically-controlled medical devices, an ominous thought but ultimately what's going to happen. The increased priority in funding NSF shows for these basic research areas is highly commended by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

    Next, integrating this knowledge into complex engineering prophecies. As I said before, design and manufacturing are sort of the heart of our profession. Projected increases there are quite in track with the rest of NSF, they're close. But because they are not quite in track we have to then leverage on other areas of NSF to make sure that design and manufacturing moves ahead at the same expediency as the rest.
 Page 86       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'd like to suggest two areas, actually three areas of initiatives where such leverage can be obtained. First, two in NSF, one is a macro-scale engineering initiative in engineering. The other one is the KDI, which is the Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence initiative, which is a NSF-wide well-known program area.

    The third is a NASA initiative in intelligence synthesis environment. These initiatives are all focused in on the areas of computing system research, and the human role in that computing system, the convergence of computing and communications, the simulation, the large-scale simulation and control. That research can have enormous impact in design and manufacturing. For example, simulation and control, large-scale simulation and control leads ultimately to developing advanced tools for us to be able to evaluate and simulate manufacturing alternatives, thereby cutting down time to market.

    Secondly, commuting system research is really the forerunner of very large virtual geographically distributed adaptive and flexible manufacturing enterprises, something that NASA and NSF are both seeing as the future downstream.

    The Task Force endorses and strongly recommends the full deployment of these inter-discipline projects.

    Let me wrap up with a word about NSF's support of engineering education. As you know, engineering is a problem defining and solving discipline. It requires a lot of team work and it requires a lot of cross-disciplinary thinking and those traits are highly valued. Engineering at NSF is the absolute leader in engineering education reform and renovation in this country. No where is the idea of inter-disciplinary more attractive and more evident than in that directive. ASME is very supportive of this, and all the other NSF education initiatives.
 Page 87       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And one specific observation in engineering education—we have for a long time supported the increase in support to graduate fellowships thinking having our best and brightest achieve is a good sign for the country. I'm glad to say, finally, that NSF is coming along in increasing that support.

    Anyway, thank you very much for the opportunity for presenting our views on the 1999 appropriations for NSF. I'll be happy to respond to any questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Reischman, thank you for being here. We appreciate Dr. Wade being here as well. If you want to supplement any of the record, we certainly will leave the record open for that purpose for our file at least, so welcome and appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. REISCHMAN. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 88       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, is Francis Lawrence with us?

    Mr. LAWRENCE. I am.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes. The president of Rutgers University, speaking for the Association of American Universities, welcome.

    Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you. The last two must stand between you and the Committee's lunch so we have to be at our best here.

    I am Francis L. Lawrence, president of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, the State's largest public research university. We enrolled 48,000 students and we graduate 10,000 yearly. And we are a major source of the highly trained workforce. I'm pleased to testify on behalf of basic scientific research and science education in a positive environment created by the leaders of both parties.

    President Clinton's budget proposal including a 10 percent increase for the National Science Foundation are sound. Speaker Gingrich also views scientific research as a priority item. I submit for the record the testimony of the Higher Education Community representing AAU, NASULGC and the American Council on Education.

    I would like to address basic scientific research and science education in the United States. Research in education rely on partnerships involving Federal and State Governments, industry, and universities. The NSF fosters such partnerships. It is the only Federal agency supporting the full range of science and engineering fields. With the proposed increased for the NSF, the Federal Government emerges as the leader and a challenger of other partners. Rutgers is a leader in partnership development. It has planned for, and is prepared to match, your leadership. For context, Rutgers' external research and training grants for the current year are at an all time high of $154.6 million, over half from Federal sources. More than 100 major corporations, including many of the Nation's largest, are sponsors of Rutgers' research. In fact, support from them in Fiscal 1997 exceeded $14 million.
 Page 89       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Our State funding is also significant. More support for the NSF is particularly important in the light of the New Jersey Commission on Higher Education draft legislation for cost-sharing which calls for State matching of Federal and private funding for research done at State research universities.

    Partnerships are a cornerstone of Rutgers' strategic plan to bring us into the first rank of public research universities by the year 2010. We have identified 13 academic growth areas for emphasis to achieve excellence. Four in particular, life science, engineering, information sciences, and the environment are highly appropriate for additional NSF support.

    I said earlier that Rutgers is a leader in creating partnerships. Even with recent budget constraints we have committed our own limited resources to growth areas. We are using $4 million annually reallocated from administrative resources to fund the initiatives to win matching funds and leverage external support. We are funding 60 projects with significant results. Some are generating external support three to four times the size of our initial investment. State, Federal, corporate, and private partners are making these developments possible.

    For example, we are poised to become a national leader in bioinformatics, blending research in applied math and computer science with molecular biology and biophysics. Among other benefits, it permits rational drug discovery through mathematical modeling of formulation, the potential benefits are enormous, especially in New Jersey which is a pharmaceutical haven of the United States. NSF funding for the project exceeds $500,000. With corporate funds and our allocations, we can see rapid large scale growth and development of this project and many others.
 Page 90       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Increased NSF support is important for research partnerships, especially for economic competitiveness and quality of life issues. So we're eager to follow your lead. And if I might, in concluding, earlier, I think six speakers ago, there was a question about where we stood in math and science. I want to give you one example that has NSF behind us. Rutgers faculty can play the leadership role in transforming the State's K-12 curriculum in mathematics and science through the NSF funded state-wide systemic initiative, Rutgers Center for Math, Science and Computer Education leads a broad effort to reform mathematics and science education. It has had a direct impact on hundreds of schools, thousands of teachers, and hundreds of thousands of children. This has been a five year grant and it is highly successfully. And certainly we're going to try to leverage it into the future.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for that testimony. Leveraging public and private dollars with nonprofit efforts are very helpful. We love that, leveraging. [Laughter.] We appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek, do you have questions?

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks a lot, appreciated that.
 Page 91       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. And the last witness for the morning session, Raymond Krizek, who is with the American Society of Civil Engineers. You've been hearing my repeated comments about for the record so I appreciate your patience and your being with us.

    Mr. KRIZEK. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. KRIZEK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Administration's fiscal year 1999 budget for FEMA's dam safety program.

    My name is Raymond J. Krizek and I currently serve as the President of the Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This is our Nation's premier organization, professional organization for go-technical engineers, engineers whose expertise lies with designing and constructing facilities involving the earth. I am also the Stanley F. Pepper Chair Professor of Civil Engineering and the Director of the Project Management Program at Northwestern University.
 Page 92       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    On behalf of the people who are served, I thank this committee for providing the full funding of $2.9 million last year to support the National Dam Safety Program. It's the first national program of this type aimed toward preventing dam failure. The $2.9 million provided a solid starting point for the States to begin improving their dam safety programs but dam safety is not a one year problem. Just as the maintenance of each of your homes, the inspection and maintenance of our Nation's 100,000 dams is a continuing program and it needs continued approaching to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences.

    Notwithstanding the immense benefits to be gained, the Administration's fiscal year budget request of $1.5 million falls woefully short of the $3.9 million authorized in the Act. And more importantly, it is inadequate to implement the National Dam Safety Program in even a minimally accepted manner. This is an alarming step backward for public safety at a time when the States, which are struggling with minimal budgets and staff are just beginning to make their first real progress toward the establishment of a truly meaningful dam safety program.

    Annual budgets in some states average less than $10 per dam. And sometimes one employee has the responsibility to inspect and evaluate more than 2,500 dams. Aging dams are especially susceptible to deterioration if not maintained. In this vein, one-fourth of our dams are more than 50 years old and by 2020 this figure will be some 85 percent. Approximately 2,000 dams are currently considered unsafe and therefore must be watched with special care. In Fiscal Year 1997 alone, 32 States reported 47 dam failures. You probably haven't heard of these because no lives were lost, although there was significant property damage encountered. Over 9,000 dams are in the high-hazard category which means that a failure would likely cause the loss of life. Of particular concern, is the fact that many of the 2,000 dams considered unsafe are in that high-hazard category and, due to restricted budgets, about one-third of all the high-hazard dams were last inspected more than a decade ago.
 Page 93       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Based on these data, dam safety officials are concerned that the many dams across our Nation are at risk. Disasters really waiting to happen. And they are even more concerned that what they don't know, because of inadequate inspection and evaluation, might be cause for greater fear.

    For these reason, the ASCE respectfully requests this subcommittee to support the addition of $2.4 million to the fiscal year 1999 budget to enable FEMA to implement the National Dam Safety Program in accordance with the intent of the Act. This very modest, yet vital funding, will enable the States to improve their fledgling dam safety programs, which in turn will translate into reduced risk to life and property.

    Dam failures are extremely expensive from all points of view and we should give special heed to the old adage that ''an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''

    ASCE looks forward to working with this subcommittee and its staff on this crucial public safety issue.

    Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Krizek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I just want to make a note of the fact that some states don't even report their dams.
 Page 94       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. KRIZEK. That is correct.

    Mrs. MEEK. It's amazing that with the proclivity for danger that they don't have reporting standards.

    Mr. KRIZEK. That is correct and in fact there are many, many dams, we don't even know how many, that are 50 to 100 years old that have been abandoned and we don't even know who the owners are.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Krizek, I appreciate your testimony very much. All of us know that dam safety is a very important item. I might just mention, have it brought to your attention, the Seven Oaks Dam is east of the San Bernandino Valley and is a major feature of this Santa Ana River Project, which is an approximately $1.5 billion project in the West. That dam is kind of, it could be compared to one of the great pyramids, only inverted. That project is ahead of schedule significantly. There's a lot of cost savings taking place. I would think somewhere within our mix here some of these might very well be able to at least focus upon those dollars and see if some could be shifted in this direction. The thought occurred to me as you gave your testimony.

    We appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. KRIZEK. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
 Page 95       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Offset folios 515 to 523 insert here

    Mr. LEWIS. The Committee is adjourned until 1:00 p.m. today, when we'll continue with the outside witnesses.
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek will be on in a just a moment. She suggested that it was appropriate that we proceed, and so, Dr. Dearborn, Pediatric Pulmonary School of Medicine, welcome.

    Dr. DEARBORN. Yes, thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. You've been through this process before——

    Dr. DEARBORN. Once before, yes.

    Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. So, if you would just summarize your statement for the record, we will include it in its entirety in the record and be happy to receive it.
 Page 96       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. DEARBORN. Okay, thanks, yes. Chairman Lewis, and other congressmen, I am a pediatric pulmonologist, a lung specialist, at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. I am here to talk about a outbreak a pulmonary hemorrhage in young infants that's been occurring in our community and actually nationwide.

    A previously rare disorder, acute pulmonary hemorrhage has been diagnosed in 41 infants in the Greater Cleveland area in the past 5 years. This serious disorder causes infants to cough blood and usually requires intensive care measures to save them. Fifteen of these infants have died including nine originally thought to have had Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Thirty-one infants were African-Americans, all of whom lived in a limited geographic area of eastern metropolitan Cleveland, an area of older housing stock. This area corresponds directly with Congressman Stokes' district, and Congressman Stokes has been providing key leadership in addressing this important disease in Cleveland infants.

    An investigation of this outbreak was led by the CDC and has linked the disease to the exposure of a toxic mold called Stachybotrys, which was found in the infants homes. This mold requires water-saturated wood products to grow and appears to have occurred secondary to chronic basement flooding or from chronic plumbing and maintenance problems. Once the source of water damage is corrected, the mold can sometimes be removed with bleach. However, residents often need assistance from local housing agencies to address more extensive problems.

    Stachybotrys, while not a common mold, is known to have a wide distribution. We are aware of a total of 124 cases of acute pulmonary hemorrhage in infants nationwide over the past 5 years. The rapidly growing lungs of young infants appear to be especially vulnerable to the toxins made by this mold. The CDC investigation also found that tobacco smoke was frequently a trigger of the bleeding.
 Page 97       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    One year ago, today, the President issued an Executive Order addressing the Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks which calls for the development of Federal programs focusing specifically on the protection of the health of children. Based on the tenants of this executive order, HUD recognized the need to provide healthy housing for children and families and designed the Healthy Homes Initiative proposed in their 1999 budget. Similarly, the EPA established their new Office of Child Health Protection. We urge Congress to support these programs.

    Pulmonary hemorrhage in infants is an emerging disease. We need to act now in Ohio to learn how to effectively prevent and treat it. The strategies that we develop will have implications for the entire country. We urge you to provide new, supplemental funding both to HUD and EPA to address this problem. We request an additional $6 million to HUD primarily to assist the homeowners in the affected areas of Greater Cleveland correct the water and mold problems in the homes with infants through the HUD's new Healthy Homes Initiative.

    HUD also needs to take leadership in research on moisture and mold problems in housing construction and remodeling and in the development of standards for housing regarding allowable levels of mold growth in private and public residents.

    We request an additional $3 million for the EPA primarily to develop rapid methods to detect and quantify airborne toxic fungi in order to make more objective public health decisions regarding the safety of infants. EPA also needs to develop toxic mold clean-up guidelines applicable to residential buildings and promote public education and research on the health effects of mold growth in homes as part of their Office of Child Health Protection.
 Page 98       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We urge you to help us attack this newly recognized environmental hazard that is killing young infants in our community. These fiscal requests are a crucial initial empowerment. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Dearborn. I must say that this is a very interesting area. Mr. Stokes can't be here; he's got a conflict—has suggested to me that I need to come visit his local housing authority sometime. There's a woman there who does fabulous work. Do you have some interplay with that local housing authority in Cleveland?

    Dr. DEARBORN. The Metropolitan Housing Authority, yes. Through the headquarters office of HUD and local offices, they have set aside 12 housing units to use for transient housing while we correct the moldy, water damaged homes where infants were living.

    Mr. LEWIS. There's not any reason why you would be aware of this, but there is a children's hospital located at Loma Linda University in California where I have spent some time. I have no idea if they know about this problem, but between now and then if there's a way that you could help me communicate in its summary form the rudiments of the problem, I'd like to have some of our people focus on it.

    Dr. DEARBORN. I just did a television interview for your HDTV, FOX, two weeks ago for your area.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thanks for being with us. We appreciate your testimony.
 Page 99       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. DEARBORN. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Michael Maves, Executive Vice President, the American Academy of Otolaryngology. Michael?

    Dr. MAVES. I'm here.

    Mr. LEWIS. There you are, okay. Otolaryngology. Good to see you.

    Dr. MAVES. It's good to be here this afternoon, and on behalf of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and its roughly 11,000 members, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony before the Committee today. I'm Dr. Michael Maves, the executive vice president of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and I would like to speak to you today about four separate programs that we have an interest in and would like to have you consider.
 Page 100       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The first is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For a long time, NASA has helped us here on Earth discover some of the causes of dizziness, of disequilibrium because of the some of the difficulties that they have in space flight and in microgravities or zero gravity. When you go up into space the little otoconia, the parts of your inner ear that keep your balance in check, floats just as other objects float, and so, as you may be aware, it's not uncommon for the astronauts to experience dizziness both when they're in space, during space travel and then after they return to the Earth. This has been an area that's been very, very hopeful for us here on Earth to understand why some of our patients have problems with their dizziness, with disequilibrium, and so it's been a very big transfer of knowledge, really, directly from the space program to taking care of actual patients here on Earth.

    It was such a big item that two years ago—and I've got a copy for you—in 1996, we put on a symposium with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Now, on the topic of using space flight, using some of the lessons that we've learned from the different space missions to highlight the progress that we've made here on Earth, as I say taking care of these patients, we certainly look forward to new developments which can occur from the space program. Microgravity offers us the opportunities to grow tissues; to grow substances in special ways, so we appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in this area and its continued support, and we would certainly, vigorously support continued investment in NASA. We feel that this is a national investment; an investment that helps not only individuals in space, but we can see very surely the real results that we've realized here on Earth.

    The second area that I'd like to talk to you a little bit about is the Environmental Protection Agency. As physicians that take care of a number of the body's senses, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and voice, we've been very, very concerned about pollution of the environment. Not only does this relate to specific pollutants such as tobacco smoke, second-hand smoke, carcinogens that we've been very aware of in medicine, but also to just general air quality in the environment, and we find that these are areas that affect not only the traditional people who worry about lung cancer and the affects on the lungs, but also there's a similar affect on the respiratory passages in the nose, in the mouth, in the oral cavity. We know, for instance, that children that are exposed to second-hand smoke, have a higher instance of having middle ear disease, and we feel that this is due to the irritation of these substances on those patients.
 Page 101       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And so one of the things that we would like is, obviously, to have the EPA continue to work to protect the quality of the air in the workplace, in the environment. We feel much like NASA, it's an investment now that will pay off long in the future.

    We testified before about the EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program, particularly the development of a national UV index. Very important as we become more and more aware of the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin; development of skin cancers. We think that this is a program, again, that represents an investment in our young individuals now so that they're counseled appropriately about the hazards of being out in the sun and exposed to ultraviolet radiation, so that later on they don't develop the problems of skin cancer that we see and we have to treat as physicians now.

    Finally, what I'd like to just discuss is the problem that we have of deafness. Although many causes of deafness are acquired, the one that we worry about the most is the deafness just from being in our modern environment. Noise from machinery, noise in industry, noise associated with various kinds of occupations is a reversible kind of injury that can occur to the ear. We know that, again, the EPA has done a great deal to advise individuals about protection from noisy environment, but, again, we've seen many, many times when we've gone into areas such as night clubs and so on where there really isn't sufficient warning about the hazards of noise, and we think that these things, again, need to be pointed out to young individuals to prevent the devastating effects of exposure to noise. It's a different kind of pollution, if you will, than that of air pollution or water pollution; the things we tend to think of more closely associated with the EPA, but it can be just as devastating and for us, at least, in otolaryngology, the specialty that deals primarily with individuals that have a hearing loss, it can be a very devastating condition.
 Page 102       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Shifting gears a little bit, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about energy efficiency. When I came to the academy from my home in St. Louis I thought that there must be a better way of maintaining some energy efficiency in our offices, and after going around late at night turning off lights, as I think all of us do, we installed a series of computer programs that did that for us; that monitored the energy efficiency of our office, and as we were going about doing this we actually found that the EPA had a specific program targeted towards this. We were very happy to be recognized both by the EPA and by the AMA for our efforts in reducing the energy usage in our office, and we've actually been able to reduce this by about $7,500 a year. I tell people this isn't just good for the environment, it's also good for your pocketbook, because it really does result in savings to the association but also savings, if you will, to society in terms of energy usage that's more wisely used and expended. They're trying to be able to have more small medical businesses become involved in this, and we encourage the EPA to make this program more widely known.

    Finally, we have one specific program, the Veterans' Administration has conducted a program with the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders regarding hearing aids for veterans. Again, we know that there's a large proportion of our veteran population due to the effective noise in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and so on that have required hearing aids. This has been a program that has resulted in a considerable amount of new knowledge about individuals being able to wear hearing aids. It's something that we're seeing more and more particularly as those of us in the baby boom generation get older. As the President just demonstrated about a year ago, we all may well be needing to think about hearing aids in some point in the future. This is a specific program that we would like to see the Veterans' Administration continue. It really represents one of the very few areas where we have an isolated program looking at a targeted use of hearing aids in the United States, and so we would like to see the—obviously, the Veterans' Administration continue to work on that program.
 Page 103       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them or we'd be happy to direct those to staff.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. I just want to mention that yesterday flying across the country with a physician fellow sitting a row ahead of me, I happen to know the gentleman. My ears seem to be functioning better than most. My wife complains about that from time to time. [Laughter.]

    But I noted I was hearing some music somewhere, and the music that I was hearing was coming from the earphones he had over his ears. The EPA can only do so much, and I'm not sure where it begins or ends, but this guy needed a little help. [Laughter.]

    Dr. MAVES. It is interesting—you know there's was a study that was actually done at the University of Iowa a number of years ago when the little Walkman-type earphones just came out, and that's exactly what they did. They recruited a group of student volunteers to wear their Walkmans at certain predefined levels, and, indeed, you can get what's called a temporary threshold shift where your hearing goes away for a short period of time and recovers, but you're right, we need to educate people more about that, but there's only so much we can do.

 Page 104       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, sir.

    Dr. MAVES. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Ellen Futter, come right up here. The American Museum of Natural History. Welcome.

    Ms. FUTTER. Good afternoon. Thank you very much, it's a pleasure to be here. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I'm delighted to join you this afternoon. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the American Museum of Natural History to present the summary of our recent activities and our Fiscal Year 1999 plans and objectives. Most of all, I want to thank this subcommittee for the contributions it has made to science education in this Nation and to science at the American Museum. There is no subcommittee in Government to which research institution such as ours owe more.
 Page 105       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This subcommittee's broad purview, ranging from urban economic development in HUD to science in NSF, NASA, EPA, mirrors that of the American Museum. Consistent with the interests of this subcommittee, the Museum has long had as its mission advancing scientific research and science education. Our scientific and educational resources are among the finest in the world and include more than 32 million artifacts and specimens forming an irreplaceable record of life on Earth; more than 200 active research scientists who possess top-ranked international expertise and who work with each of the research agencies under your jurisdiction, NASA and NSF prime among them; an audience of more than 3.5 million visitors annually of whom almost half of children; a long-standing tradition of enhancing science education for one of the largest urban school systems in the Nation.

    This past year with the benefit of this subcommittee's important leadership and in partnership with NASA's administrator, Daniel Goldin, the education division of NASA, and many of the NASA centers, the Museum established the National Center for Science Literacy, Education, and Technology. The National Center yields an unprecedented expansion of the Museum's educational mission by creating materials and programs that reach beyond the Museum's walls into schools, homes, museums, libraries, and other community-based centers around the Nation to link citizens of all ages, backgrounds, and levels of education with the vast resources of the Museum.

    Looking ahead, I would like to focus on the Museum's current concentration on the vital topic of biodiversity, and I can't help but point out that today's Washington Post includes a report of a survey conducted by our Museum in which it is reported that a majority of the Nation's biologists believe that the loss of biodiversity is the greatest environmental threat confronting our planet at this time. As we embark on our new biodiversity initiative, we are harnessing the educational resources of the Museum's National Center and the research capacity of our Center for Biodiversity and Conservation. Together, these two new leadership institutes are extensively involved in global environmental research, education and training in a broad range of biodiversity efforts including the development of a entirely new, innovative, world-class exhibition facility, the Hall of Biodiversity, where cutting-edge technology will be used to translate and interpret science to the public.
 Page 106       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In the upcoming year, the Museum seeks to play an increasingly prominent role in the search for solutions to today's most pressing scientific issues. Consistent with the Federal government's own stated commitment to an interagency and multi-disciplinary direction in these areas, we are seeking Federal partnerships to ensure that the programs of the Museum are developed with a similar approach. Given the EPA's longstanding leadership in environmental science, technology, education, and training, EPA would be an invaluable partner for the American Museum. Such a partnership would advance the objectives of joining scientific and environmental research, expanding educational outreach, and increasing scientific literacy across the Nation.

    The American Museum of Natural History—I hope it's clear—is deeply appreciative of the support this subcommittee has given in the past and looks forward to continuing and strengthening this fruitful collaboration, and I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Futter, thank you very much for your testimony. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, we appreciate it.

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

 Page 107       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Cyrus Jollivette.

    Mrs. MEEK. I'm going to introduce him.

    Mr. LEWIS. The gentleman from the University of Miami, I believe that the gentlelady, Mrs. Meek, would like to say a word before you get a chance.

    Mr. JOLLIVETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you for appearing today. We're happy that you're here. This subcommittee has assisted the University of Miami in really proving its capability in terms of demonstrated leadership in developing the world's first licensed medical waste treatment utilizing electron beam technology. The University has proven itself in terms of being able to develop these kinds of initiatives which have a community purpose in mind but yet has significant impact on research. Today, Mr. Jollivette—I've known Mr. Jollivette since he was a child, Mr. Chairman. I was a very young woman, but I've known him since he was a child. I was very precocious so I was able to know these younger people. [Laughter.]
 Page 108       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    He's here today representing the University of Miami. I may sometimes sound like a cheerleader for the University of Miami, but they showed me many years ago that they have interest in the community; not only the university community but communities surrounding the university particularly inner city communities. They did a lot to develop those areas. Today, Mr. Jollivette is going to explain to the Committee what they think their needs are now in terms of coral reef research. As you know, in the Miami area there's the largest coral reef in this country. I hope you don't claim it, Mr. Chairman. There's a real strong need for this kind of research, and they're coming today to talk to us about that as well as a need for extended medical research. Mr. Jollivette is an accomplished young man. I'm a little biased, but I must say that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Jollivette, I'm not sure where you go from here. [Laughter.]

    Mr. JOLLIVETTE. I'm humbled, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Ms. Meek for her very, very kind words about my institution, the University of Miami, where she had the privilege to be affiliated for the last 20 years and also for her kind words about me. I deeply appreciate it.

    Before I begin, I'd like to say to you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Meek, and to those members of the Subcommittee who are not here how much my colleagues and I at the University of Miami appreciate the support that you provide for the National Science Foundation and for the Environmental Protection Agency. These are agencies that are very, very critical to research in the country and research in which my colleagues at the University of Miami participate in. Today, as Ms. Meek indicated, I'm here to focus on two problems of national significance. There are two initiatives at the University of Miami: We hope to establish a National Center for Coral Reef Research, and we hope to move forward on a demonstration project of a full scale medical waste treatment facility. Ms. Meek indicated that the at the University of Miami, Jackson Memorial Medical Complex in Miami, we have the world's only licensed medical waste treatment facility for the use of using electron beam technology. What we are attempting to do is to build upon what has been a long history of research and leadership on coral reefs and also what has been some good measure of success in developing this licensed medical waste treatment facility.
 Page 109       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    First, let me talk about coral reefs. They are the only ecosystems on Earth that are constructed entirely by the secretions of a complex assembly of marine animals and plants, as you know. I'm not a scientist; I'm here representing our scientists, particularly Dr. Leena Thiesmet at our Rosenfield School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. Coral reefs are economically important to us because of food, medicinals, and coastal protection. Unfortunately, what our scientists are finding, not just Miami but other places too, is that due to coastal development, environmental changes tends to be related to global climate change and overexploitation of coral reef fisheries, resources are contributing to what is a worldwide decline of coral reefs at an alarming particularly in the Caribbean region. Our coral reefs in Florida are downstream of the entire Caribbean coral reef system and thus dependent upon that system for larval recruits and maintenance and fisheries stocks. Also, our reefs could be affected by pollutants released by other nations in the region and also from our own rivers via discharge into the Gulf of Mexico.

    Historically, coral reef research has been piecemeal with few attempts at what we see as interdisciplinary process-oriented research. We hope that we are able, through the establishment of a National Coral Reef Center, coordinate the Nation's coral reef policy research and assemble major national and international initiatives pertaining to coral reefs. We envision that our center will foster organization and collaboration within the Nation's scientific community and lead to the development of a new level of understanding of the environmental conditions necessary for the establishment, survival, and sustainable use of these coral reef ecosystems. We hope that it might be possible for you to allocate through the Environmental Protection Agency $2 million to establish a National Center for Coral Reef Studies.

 Page 110       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Next, I'd like to turn my discussion to support of the electron beam technology which we've already referred to. We have unique facilities at the Jackson Memorial University of Miami Medical School Complex, and this complex comprises approximately 5 hospitals with a total bed capacity of 2,700, and as I have indicated, this site is the world's only licensed facility for the treatment of medical waste using electron beam technology.

    Why is this important? Recent EPA regulations limiting emissions from medical waste incinerators have basically forced all hospitals to reconsider their medical waste treatment approaches. Considering that most hospitals utilize incineration in the past, it's clear that there is a national issue here, and, in fact, many hospitals are turning to other means of doing it. For example, they're using autoclaves. If you can imagine the size of an autoclave and what it must—the odors emanating and the residue resulting from autoclaving infectious waste. It's also a very, very expensive technology. We believe that what we have been able to demonstrate at the University of Miami Jackson Memorial Complex is that electron beam technology could become commercially feasible to treat medical waste, and we have, in fact, a working prototype that can treat 500 pounds of medical waste per hour that we are able to obtain from the 2,700 beds in those 5 institutions in the medical center, and we have demonstrated and have been able to prove that in fact the infectious medical waste is disinfected by using what is a low-cost technology. This is promising, and we hope, in fact, that we are able to move forward with it.

    What we've been able to do thus far has been through a public-private partnership. There's been funding from the Federal Government, from private industry in Florida, Florida Power and Light, and from other entities to bring us to this point, to develop the prototype facility which was inaugurated in 1997 which was licensed by the State of Florida in 1998. We now are poised to demonstrate that electron beam treatment is cost effective and that we could use it and could be used very broadly in the country. We are seeking $1.5 million for this project. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and your colleagues from the subcommittee face very many difficult funding issues, however, because of the nature of these initiatives that I have described today and the long range implications that can benefit the Nation, my colleagues and I hope that it will be possible to provide support for these two projects.
 Page 111       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you. Enough said, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. I'm curious about the electronic beam procedure, because there's been for some time a law on the books that requires disposal sites to be located in the various States; some by region; some by State of medical and other kinds of low-level wastes. To say the least, that's been very controversial in those States where you try to locate such facilities. In the meantime, this process is one that technically would disinfect such medical facility——

    Mr. JOLLIVETTE. Totally. Disinfect it totally and would allow for mingling with other wastes. It would also allow——

    Mr. LEWIS. So, after such treatment then the standard waste disposal facility could receive that waste and not have a special——

    Mr. JOLLIVETTE. Precisely. In some instances, some communities would elect to have the waste shredded; it could be shredded. In others where it's not necessary to be shredded, it could be disposed of with other waste that is currently being disposed of in those communities.

    Mr. LEWIS. I'll look at it further with interest.

 Page 112       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mrs. MEEK. And I visited the center, Mr. Chairman, and it's working very well.

    Mr. JOLLIVETTE. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Dr. Ronald Atlas, American Society for Microbiology, welcome.

    Mr. ATLAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your testimony will be received in total, and you can summarize it as you wish.

 Page 113       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. ATLAS. Thank you. I'm here today to testify on behalf of the American Society for Microbiology which is the world's single largest life sciences organization. We represent 43,000 members in our society, and today I want to address some of our recommendations concerning the appropriation for both the EPA and the National Science Foundation.

    The EPA budget, as you well know, is a complex and very fragmented budget request. One of the things we always have difficulty doing is tying the various intramural and extramural elements of the program together. We focus part of our attention on the extramural programs with the hope that these will be at the highest scientific quality. In particular, we note within the EPA's appropriation request the Science To Achieve or Results, or STAR Program, as an important initiative which, in fact, has instituted a peer review program that should facilitate it becoming a very high quality program. This year's request for that program is $99 million, and the ASM is fully supportive of funding of that full request; that's a $12 million increase over last year's appropriation for that program. It's particularly important to include it in there or specific areas for targeting bioremediations, drinking, water quality, ecology of harmful algal blooms, and other programs many of which have microbiological components to them.

    Beyond that, we are supportive of a funding level of $15 million for the EPA's Fellowship Program. That would be $5 million more than the President's request for that program. We think the training of the next generation of scientists across all science, particularly, in this case, the environmental arena, is very critical. We note that last year the Administration had requested $15 million; the Congress gave $10 million in that program. This year, the Administration has elected to request only what the Congress had given it last year. We think that it's important to move that program ahead and we are recommending the full $15 million that previously had been requested.
 Page 114       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Let me turn from the specific funding areas to the issue of drinking water quality. We've been concerned over a number of years that there has been more emphasis on the chemicals in our water supplies than on microorganisms, although many microorganisms are emerging as real problems. We note years ago the outbreak of Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee and the more recent algal bloom, Pfiesteria, that probably cost this area about $43 million in lost economics. We think the EPA needs to pay more attention to the microset causing these acute outbreaks to work with other organizations like the Centers for Disease Control in really identifying and protecting the Nation's drinking water supply and the recreational waters. We also note with some concern possible transfer of pathogens to foods and in particularly shellfish a real problem in this area.

    The American Society for Microbiology is in the process of preparing a briefing booklet for Congress on these concerns which we hope within the next month to be able to bring to the Hill highlighting those areas. As far as the appropriation, though, we really think that attention needs to be paid to the basic research programs, the basic development advance of the information we need for sound rulemaking; rulemaking based on risk analyses. In this regard, we have some specific language which is highlighted in our testimony that we are asking for inclusion. This language would direct the EPA to pay attention—or more attention to the microbes in the water supplies and support basic research programs within that purview. EPA would then be allowed to undertake the sound rulemaking that we think is absolutely critical. We can then understand the risks that microbes pose to our water supplies and control those risks.

    Let me turn from the EPA to the National Science Foundation which is an extraordinarily important organization in terms of overall scientific research which we're sure will be highlighted to your subcommittee by many organizations testifying today. The ASM is a member of the Coalition for National Science Funding which has proposed an increase of $344 million in the NSF appropriation which would be a 10 percent increase over the 1998 funding level. We are absolutely supportive of that. We think it would entitle NSF or enable them to support additional excellent research into many important discoveries and innovations.
 Page 115       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Within that appropriation bill are a number of specific programs highlighted in our written text with specific links to microbiology. We think these programs are pivotal in furthering this critical science. Among those we are endorsing are the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology request that a minimum of $40 million per year be invested in the next 5 years in the next generation natural biological information infrastructure. We think that databases, including those of microorganisms, are absolutely critical for everything from new drug discoveries to enzyme production to control of pests and so forth, and that, in fact, the NSF program increase proposed for $130 million over a 3-year period on discovery of new species will help further those goals.

    Finally, we are encouraging the NSF to expand its support for molecular sequencing of microbial genomes. We note that today many of the microbial genome projects have been supported by the Department of Energy, and we think it important for the NSF to move into areas that are not specifically within the purview of Energy and areas such as biodiversity and other areas. This has been a very exciting area of discovery in microbiology that is continuously highlighted whenever a new genome is sequenced in the popular press leading to as many questions, I would say, as answers today. It really needs attention at the basic level from the NSF.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Atlas, we appreciate your being here. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you.
 Page 116       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Atlas.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Peter Saundry, the Executive Director of the National Institute for the Environment. Peter?

    Mr. SAUNDRY. Well, thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Peter Saundry. I am the Executive Director of the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.

    Mr. LEWIS. We will include your entire statement for the record as you know.

    Mr. SAUNDRY. Wonderful, I'll cut to the chase and get done. The basic thrust that we are here for is the mission of improving the scientific basis of environmental decision making. That's a goal that I think you and full committee members share, and I think it was so last year when we put into the report line of accompanying appropriations bill the statement that the United States needs a trusted source of scientific information on environmental issues that's separate from the regulatory agencies; quite an important distinction, and it needs to address the key questions of decision makers both inside that Federal government and outside the Federal government. That was an important statement, and we thank the Committee for doing so, and I think a lot of people support this effort. We appreciate your work on this.
 Page 117       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The testimony you just heard from the gentleman from the University of Miami and on microbiology really touch upon the central issue of how do we get more sides onto environmental decision making? It's a very, very fundamental issue, and it's one that we've been grappling with a long time. Now, we have developed with the help of a lot people around the country an idea for this thing for the National Institute for the Environment, something that might do for environmental science what the National Institutes of Health does so well for biomedical science. We have had a mission of improving the scientific basis for environmental decision making, and we've integrated knowledge assessments, research support, information dissemination, and education, and we've involved stakeholders inside the Federal government as well as outside the Federal government, in the communities that are affected by so many of our land issues.

    Now, last year, this committee directed the National Science Foundation to study how it would establish and operate a nonregulatory environmental science institute that would implement these basic functions of knowledge assessments, research, information dissemination, education and training. It was a very, very constructive statement to make, and this committee deserves a very constructive response from the National Science Foundation, one that allows you to make significant progress on these issues.

    In response to your statement in this committee, 214 university chancellors and presidents around the country wrote to the National Science Foundation and urged them to come up with a bold and creative vision for a partnership of environmental science and the Earth. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce had the same statement as a lot of other organizations. This thing had the support of State and local government, the National Association of Counties and so forth, the environmental organizations, business groups, California Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and so on and so on, three fellow EPA administrators, six or seven former EPA research grants.
 Page 118       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    However, four weeks ago, a resolution was passed by the National Science Board which indicated that the reports that they're going to present to you may not be responsive to the question that you asked them. How would they do this? Mr. Frelinghuysen asked some very pointed questions at NSF's hearing three weeks ago raising a concern that the Committee's direction is not being considered. Now, we don't expect NSF to come up with the same proposal. We don't expect all the details and the t's to cross in the same way, but we do expect NSF to be responsive to this committee and to your desire to improve environmental science and the decision making. So, we put forward a statement that if NSF does not clearly answer your direction, your question put forth to them in the report line of last year, that the Committee directs NSF to redo the report so that it is responsive to your request.

    Finally, NSF is able to look forward on this issue provided they've had some time to do so. Finally, I'd like to put forward a challenge to the Committee that it fund the National Science Foundation $20 million to $50 million above the President's request for fiscal year 1999 to allow the Foundation to move forward on this issue. It's a tough challenge, I know, because there's a lot more demand out there than supply for Federal funding, however, it is a political issue, and it is an issue that costs this country billions and billions of dollars every year in decision making that is not best targeted to coming up with the right solution. We ask that that money not come out of NSF's existing requested budget. Again, recognizing that's an incredible challenge to put upon you and you have had a lot of diverse demands today, however, the issue is one that you—is fundamentally important to this Nation. This committee has supported it in the past, and, therefore, we've this wonderful opportunity to move forward and to make progress on this issue, particularly if NSF's report is a helpful one. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
 Page 119       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Saundry, we appreciate your testimony.

    Mr. SAUNDRY. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Ralph Beedle, senior vice president for Nuclear Generation at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Mr. Beedle.

    Mr. BEEDLE. Chairman Lewis and Representative Meek, my name is Ralph Beedle. I'm the Senior Vice President with the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Institute is a policy organization representing over 275 U.S. and international companies in the nuclear energy field.
 Page 120       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'd like to begin by expressing my appreciation to this subcommittee for its commitment to careful oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency and its National Priorities List. I also appreciate the invitation to testify today and I ask that my full remarks be included in the record.

    Mr. LEWIS. They will be.

    Mr. BEEDLE. Thank you. Last year, this committee and the Congress instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to refrain from devoting time and resources to establishing radiation protection standards for the public. These EPA standards which represent a direct conflict with those established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent agency responsible for setting radiation standards for commercial nuclear facilities. The NRC rule for license termination assures full protection of public health and safety during comprehensive radiation protection programs based on total exposure to the public. The Commission's rule is a result of four years of extensive scientific study, public input, including more than 7,000 comments from the scientific and professional community, State, tribal, and local governments, the environmental groups, and the NRC licensees. The EPA was an active participant throughout the rulemaking process, and the NRC officials continuously sought that agency's input. The NRC has provided oversight for successful decommissioning to over 70 sights using this rule.

    Last August, EPA released guidance on radiation clean-up standards that challenge the NRC's rule on residuals radiation standards, and these standards had been issued just one month earlier. The EPA guidance raises serious concerns that the EPA will target decommissioned sites that already have achieved NRC clean-up standards. This could result in additional analysis of clean decommissioned nuclear facilities. The process would be protracted and licensees including the Federal Government, universities, and medical institutions would face unnecessary financial burden to these alternate regulations with little benefit to the public and the health and safety of the public or the environment. This duplicative and confusing and regulatory effort by the EPA was specifically prohibited by this committee in report language last year. In addition, the Clinton administration in 1993 issued an Executive Order that restricts Federal agencies from creating inconsistent or duplicative regulations that result in unacceptable and unreasonable expense to the American public. The EPA's guidance is not consistent with the NRC's deliberative approach to nuclear power plant decommissioning standards. The Environmental Agency is promoting burdensome and costly regulations for the nuclear industry and its site cleanup effort.
 Page 121       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The agency also advocates a separate residual radiation standard for groundwater, although the Office of Management and Budget has determined that the proposal is cost prohibitive. EPA does not have any scientific basis for the proposal and the proposal would not enhance public health and safety, as I stated before.

    Last July, Congress adopted language in its appropriations report that prohibits the EPA from spending funds to place Nuclear Regulatory Commission license fees on the National Priority List, that is commonly referred to as the Superfund List.

    Notwithstanding this prohibition, the Agency appears to be devoting time and resources to challenging the NRC's authority to regulate the NRC licensing, specifically in establishing limits on public radiation exposure on decommissioned nuclear sites.

    NRC Chairman Jackson, in an April 9 letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner said, and I quote, ''dual regulation is wasteful of both the government resources and the resources of the American citizens to whom the regulations apply.''

    The approach used in NRC's clean-up rules provides for the regulation necessary for adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment. The Nuclear Energy Institute recommends that this committee forcefully direct the EPA to apply its finite resources to areas where it has jurisdiction and where those resources can benefit the public. Further, the Committee should restrict the Agency from establishing duplicative radiation protection guidelines for NRC licensed facilities.

 Page 122       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. Chairman, Congress can't afford to let the Federal government waste public and private funds on overlapping regulation initiatives that do not provide measurable improvement for public health and safety.

    Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Beedle, your comments are very well taken, we appreciate you testimony. Sometimes, it is like speaking in a wind tunnel, but on the other hand I think we need to repeat that point. We have only so much money to go around and that is the point I need to make. Thank you very much.

    Mr. BEEDLE. Yes, sir.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 123       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stephen Gorden, The American Water Works Association. Mr. Gorden? How are you?

    Mr. GORDEN. Good afternoon.

    Mr. LEWIS. You can summarize your statement if you like. It will be included in its entirety in the record.

    Mr. GORDEN. My name is Steve Gorden and I am Director of the Detroit Water and Sewer from the State of Michigan and I am here on the part of the American Water Works Association. I am also here on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National Association of Water Companies. And the combined membership serves approximately 80 percent of the population of the United States.

    I would like to thank the Committee for what it has done for systems in the past, we're talking about public health here and the Safe Drinking Water Act and the water community, and the water industry. It's been much appreciated.

    And I would also like to acknowledge Congressman Knollenberg from our area.

    The issues of public health and drinking water are very, very appropriate here. In fact, since the past four people have just testified, I started taking stuff out of my testimony because they are covering my issues.
 Page 124       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I think what it shows is the issues of the environment are really coming together and the common theme that I'm hearing, and I would say stuff about it also, is the research.

    We have certain things in our research for public drinking water, we have grants for public water systems supervision programs, the EPA programs, and the clean water action program, which the administration is putting forth. That will assist us in our watershed areas, very important to us, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund which we all know. Both programs will assist the industry where there are areas of problems with the financial disadvantage of standards.

    The two areas that I would like to talk about though are the Drinking Water SRF and the budget request for drinking water research. Those are really important to us. When the Safe Drinking Water Act came forth, the Administration recommended $1 billion for the original SRF amount. What has occurred, is EPA only requesting $775 million. We believe that we need to have that amount back up because SRF and what it tries to do is only seed money, very, very much seed money.

    For example, in a back of the envelope analysis, EPA indicated there was about $12.1 billion worth of safe drinking water needs out there reported by the industry. I will tell you that, Detroit alone has a capital program of $12 billion over the next ten years. And that's just these kinds of programs. The infrastructure is coming into play because what it is is public money.

 Page 125       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    What we would also look at is drinking water research and, again, the three agencies that I mentioned that I'm representing recommend that at least $20 million of the drinking water research get added to the set-asides because of the things in the EPA. There are times that we can cooperate with our own research and thereby leverage up the funds from our research foundations. Those are very, very important to us.

    The Safe Drinking Water Act reforms require that good science and risk-based factors be used to make decisions on what our standards should be. By not having the good research, what happens or generally occurs is the addition of safety factors that really impact our infrastructure requirements and needs and are very costly to the public.

    As we talk here, public resources are very scarce. We have to be really careful with them and that is part of the drive for the Association.

    As I mentioned there is also the $5 million in the drinking water research including $1 million for arsenic and that went into our research foundations. Again, we encouraged that to come forth because the industry will match that. The government leverages up their ability to have the research done by 50 cents on the dollar.

    In closing, I would say this to you again. I remind this committee that they have done some great work for us and I would encourage you to continue on, because this public health issue represents a basic trust between the government, the citizen, and their belief that we are here to protect their drinking water health. We never want to be in a position where a grandparent is fearful of giving a grandchild a drink of water out of the tap.

 Page 126       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    That is something that we believe in. We live in our own communities and we support. So, I guess the request is, please help us maintain this trust in public health.

    If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Gorden, Mr. Knollenberg was sorry he had a conflict and couldn't be here, but I appreciate in his absence your giving us a heads-up relative to the $4 billion item that may be caught in the assembly line.

    Mr. GORDEN. Okay.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Nice to see you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Representing the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, from beautiful downtown Redlands, California, Robert Martin.
 Page 127       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. I realize a constituent. [Laughter.]

    As you know all day, we ask you to summarize your statement and that which you present will be included in the record.

    Mr. MARTIN. Very good.

    My name is Robert Martin, I'm the general manager of the East Valley Water District in San Bernardino, California. With me two are two of my directors, Mr. Don Goodin and Mr. Kip Sturgeon. Also with me is my colleague Whit Van Cott from the city of Hollywood in Florida, my wife, Elaine.

    I am here today representing the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, the Association of California Water Agencies, and my own district.

    Our request to you today is being supported by a number of other organizations, the American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Water Companies, and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.

    With regards to AWWARF, AWWARF is an organization that is supported by approximately 1,000 water utilities in the country and across the world. Utilities send their own money to help fund drinking water research. The support that your committee has provided to AWWARF has led to, I think, a string of successful Federal-local partnerships for drinking water research purposes.
 Page 128       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    AWWARF has always pledged to bring its own money to the table before we ask your committee for funds. This is true this year, also.

    Last year, in fiscal year 1998, the Committee provided $4 million to AWWARF which put in $1 million for arsenic health effect research. These funds will be matched by both AWWARF and AWCA, anywhere from a one-to-one basis up to over four-to-one by the water utilities.

    Again, I think this provides for a very effective partnership in drinking water research.

    This match will also provide funds to us in the coming fiscal year.

    Last year your committee also provided $2 million to fund East Valley Water District for perchlorate treatment technology research. Perchlorate is a rocket fuel additive that was found last year in drinking water supplies in California and Nevada. It is a chemical that is also used in the manufacture of ammunitions and fireworks. So far it has shown up in California and Nevada and I'm convinced if we're looking for it, we'll find it across the country and it will become a national drinking water problem.

    It's a bit disconcerting in that any of the contaminants we face, if we throw enough money at it, we can usually solve the problem by building enough treatment. With perchlorate, however, there is no treatment technology available to us, we cannot remove it from drinking water supplies, and that is what the money you have provided us with has been used for.
 Page 129       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Last year an expert panel was funded, both from across the country, to come together and develop a multiyear research program. That was done. And the $2 million you provided us has gone to funding the first set of high priority projects that were identified by that group of experts.

    With any luck, we are looking at contracts, we should have those awards done this summer and we'll get started.

    For fiscal year 1999, we are asking your committee to again provide a $5 million earmarked add-on to the American Water Works Association Research of which $1 million will be included for arsenic research.

    These funds will be matched on at least a one-for-one basis by the water supply community. We are also asking for $2.65 million for East Valley Water District to continue our perchlorate research program. This will allow us to begin the phase two work and transfer the results we get in the laboratory to field applications.

    I want to thank you for the past support you've given us from this committee and I thank you for considering this current fiscal year 1999 request for funds.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Martin, we very much appreciate your testimony. I know you will keep this committee informed relative to your project as it moves forward and any additional material that you develop will be part of our buy-out as we develop our record. We very much appreciate it. We look forward to the 1999 year.
 Page 130       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Appreciate you and your colleagues being with us.

    Mr. MARTIN. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Rudy Rice, President, National Association of Conservation Districts.

    Mr. Rice.

    Mr. RICE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, we thank you for this opportunity to come and present testimony to you.
 Page 131       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We've already submitted detailed testimony and these are the highlights quickly.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate that.

    Mr. RICE. My name is Rudy Rice and I'm here today on behalf of the Nation's 3,000 conservation districts and the 54 State-level conservation agencies that provide administrative, technical, and financial support for their programs.

    Conservation district are units of local State government charged with carrying out natural resource management programs at the local levels.

    Our allied partners in Natural Resource Conservation Service, part of the United States Department of Agriculture, provide conservation assistance to more than 2.5 million landowners and operators who manage nearly 70 percent of the private land in the United States.

    I'm a dairy farmer from Illinois and I can particularly appreciate the recent attention that has been focused on animal waste management and water quality concerns.

    Conservation districts have been working with local farmers and ranchers for more than sixty years to help address natural resource problems. We have been strong supporters of the Clean Water Act section 319, the State's program because it fits closely with our cooperative, voluntary approach to solving resource problems.

 Page 132       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    With State and local matching efforts, the 319 program has helped States make considerable progress in controlling nonpoint source pollution but a lot remains to be done.

    President Clinton's clean water action plan released in February cites 25 years in success in wastewater treatment and advances in reducing industrial waste discharges, largely as a result of more than $100 billion in Federal funding for program efforts during that time. We believe that the lack of funding has been, and still is, the main reason that States haven't made more progress in solving nonpoint source pollution problems.

    The President's plan shifts the Federal initiatives heavily toward nonpoint pollution. We believe it is a step in the right direction because it calls for substantial increases in funding, not just the EPA program, but other Federal agencies with water quality responsibilities as well. The President's Fiscal 1999 clean water and watershed restoration initiative calls for an additional $145 million over 1998 for EPA water quality programs. Most of the increase is targeted for nonpoint source pollution. While we do not support every initiative outlined in the President's plan, we do support increased funding for EPA's voluntary, incentives-based water quality programs.

    Specifically the budget initiative proposes to increase section 319 grants to $200 million. Conservation district currently receive about 34 percent of those funds from those grants and are well positioned to effectively utilize additional funding through this initiative.

    Since EPA is moving forward with plans to increase its regulatory oversight of animal feeding operations, we urge the Subcommittee to include in its report direction that increases is expected to provide for substantial expansion in technical and financial assistance to farmers and ranchers.
 Page 133       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    On a personal note, I'm right in the process. I'm a fifth-generation dairy farmer from southern Illinois and we're faced with a decision: Do we have the economic ability to update our waste-handling system or do we get out of the dairy business and it is going to be quite a tough decision for us, but we're going to have to face up to it.

    We need more assistance for development and implementation of integrated pest and crop management systems, nutrient and animal waste management plans, and installation of additional conservation measures to reduce runoff and erosion.

    Additional and specific recommendations for funding EPA's nonpoint source pollution programs are outlined in my written testimony. We urge you to keep in mind our collective ability to address the Nation's nonpoint source pollution problems depend on a strong Federal commitment to the partnership with State and local governments.

    I thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony and a few moments of personal testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, very much, Mr. Rice, for being with us. We appreciate very much your willingness to participate.

    Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you. I have no questions.

 Page 134       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Dave Bolin of the Ground Water Protection Council.

    Mr. Bolin.

    Mr. BOLIN. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Dave Bolin. I am the Assistant Oil and Gas Supervisor for the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama and I currently serve as the President of the Groundwater Protection Council.

    I am here today to provide testimony in support of certain EPA programs that address our Nation's groundwater supplies.

 Page 135       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I'll present my verbal testimony at this time.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. BOLIN. My agency is a typical member agency of the Ground Water Protection Council. We are responsible for the environmental safeguards related to oil and gas exploration and production. Many of us are also responsible for State ground water and surface water protection programs. Through the GWPC, my agency and our counterparts in other States work together to protect ground water resources while reducing the cost of compliance to industry.

    We feel that GWPC's mission reflects the future of environmental protection; that is we, the regulations, must form partnerships with industry and local governments to protect the environment. This is the alterative to a command and control regulatory model which often results in unintended consequences, such as unnecessary cost to industry and local government.

    These consequences are not just to protect our environment or effectively utilize our limited resources.

    In addition to expressing the State governmental agencies' appreciation for your assistance this past year, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to emphasize one main point today, that is that the success in implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act's source water protection program, and the Act's underground injection control program for oil and gas exploration depends primarily on State government agencies such as the one I'm associated with.

 Page 136       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Because we are the keys to success and workability of these two EPA-delegated programs, we urge the Subcommittee to look at increasing funding to innovative State programs as an alternative to expanding the Federal bureaucracy. In both programs EPA had requested additional funding.

    An example of this environmental innovation is GWPC's proposal to provide States with data and information to allow them to comply with the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act's requirements that States submit a source water plan to EPA next year for all their public water projects.

    We are currently developing a data system that many States will use as the core of their source water program. There is no other data system being developed by EPA or anyone else to assist the States.

    We feel that additional source water resources should be utilized to get this information system to States so that they can, in fact, comply with EPA requirements.

    I have with my testimony five letters from State governments supporting database systems.

    Our other priority is the EPA underground injection control program. It is our hope that you will consider increasing the program's funding in this EPA budget. Increasing the UIC grant to $17 million in this coming year will not only protect the environment but will also reduce the environmental regulatory cost burden on the oil and gas industries and the State agencies.
 Page 137       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Currently, as a result of overburdened State agencies, industry may face slower process of permits which ultimately decreases production and makes foreign production more competitive.

    In closing, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the Committee for the previous support and ask for your support again on these two priorities.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Bolin. Questions from the members of Mr. Bolin?

    We appreciate your being here and GWPC has been represented very well by you.

    Mr. BOLIN. Thank you, sir.

    [The information follows:]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 138       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. The National Rural Water Association is represented by Mr. Patrick Williams, who comes to us directly from heaven. [Laughter.]

    Beautiful downtown Crestline in this case. I think you've heard me today, your entire testimony will be included in the record and if you'd summarize that for us, we'll see what members have questions.

    Mr. WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Chairman Lewis, and members of the Committee. My name is Patrick Williams and I am the manager of the Valley of Enchantment Mutual Water Company in Crestline, California. I am honored to be here today, this is my first time to visit Washington.

    The Valley of Enchantment Mutual Water Company is a nonprofit small water system serving 850 homes in the San Bernardino Mountains. We are run by a seven-member elected board of directors comprised of local citizens. Our average monthly water bill for a family of four is approximately $50 a month. We have some of the highest rates in California due to a lack of groundwater and the high cost of supplemental water from the State water project.

    Due to our local geology and the fact that we are surrounded by the San Bernardino National Forest, any groundwater is precious.

    I have over 22 wells and we are constantly studying new sources. The National Forest Service will not permit any new wells on their land and the local geology makes finding new sources a real challenge. Last year we spent over $50,000 to drill a new well 500 feet into the granite bedrock. Due to these challenges, I am a perfect candidate for the rural water groundwater program. I must protect each of my wells. Any contamination in any of my 22 wells would be disastrous.
 Page 139       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    My message today is that the funding for rural water technical assistance and small community groundwater protection are the most important EPA funds that you appropriate.

    It is smaller communities that have struggled to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and it is the on-site technical assistance and training provided by the California Rural Water Association and the other State rural water associations that have allowed smaller systems to comply with Federal mandates and protect their drinking water.

    Rural water works, because it works from the bottom up by educating small tows on the need to protect our own environment and then showing them how on a peer-to-per level. This grassroots approach is the only way to get improvement in the over 150,000 little water systems across the country.

    When our community takes responsibility for our own environmental protection, it works better and cheaper than heavy-handed enforcement. All small communities want to provide safe water, and rural water teaches them how, right in their own community.

    This report, which I will leave with you today, describes and lists the over 2,000 rural communities that have adopted groundwater protection ordinances through the EPA rural water groundwater protection program. My town will be on this list next year.

    The core of the program relies on the active participation of the local water operators like me. When we recommend the groundwater protection programs to local elected board of directors, it moves forward with their official support. Once the local ordinance is in place, we can take action.
 Page 140       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    There is a need to identify potential pollution problems like illegal dumping, gas stations, and industries and make sure that they obtain permission before they are allowed to enter into any risky activity.

    This is the most progressive groundwater program in existence and it has been accomplished without Federal regulation.

    Mr. Chairman, I will close with our request that the committee include $8.8 million in the EPA's budget for all State rural water technical assistance and our groundwater protection initiatives.

    Thank you for your past support and the opportunity to be here today.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Williams, I very much appreciate your being here. As you know, the Committee has been very positive about these programs in the past as we will do what we can to be responsive to your quest. You have indicated this is the first time you've been to the Nation's capital. Have you gone by my office in Rayburn yet?

    Mr. WILLIAMS. I'm on my way there, shortly.

    Mr. LEWIS. I don't see him around here, so if you ask for Jeff Shockley, make sure you tell him that you and I just chatted.

    Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay.
 Page 141       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your being here.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Redmond.

    Mr. REDMOND. I came to hear Mr. Mauderly from my home district.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay. We are exercising the discretion of the Chair again because my colleagues have ridiculous schedules and Mr. Redmond, I appreciate you coming.

    Mr. REDMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the person who testified right before me was from, you mentioned coming straight from heaven. He must have gotten off the plane from Albuquerque because Albuquerque is [speaks briefly in Spanish], the kingdom of heaven of the Southwest.
 Page 142       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I've heard that from you and others. I've been convinced that I might visit sometimes.

    Mr. REDMOND. Oh, New Mexico is beautiful. Acoma Pueblo is the oldest inhabited village in North America. It's south of where Dr. Mauderly lives.

    Mr. Chairman, I'm here to introduce Dr. Joe Mauderly. He's the Director of External Affairs at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute, a private, nonprofit biomedical research organization in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

    He has devoted his entire career to researching and understanding and preventing human health risks from inhaled toxic agents.

    Earlier in his career, Dr. Mauderly pioneered the field of adapting the full range of clinical tests of human lung infections, human lung function to the application of animals and laboratory studies. His recent research has focused on health risks from inhaled particles and improving our understanding of the usefulness of animal models for predicting particulate inducted human lung disease.

    He is especially recognized for his extensive research on lung health risks from inhaled diesel exhaust, he is a member of several professional organizations primarily dealing with toxicology, physiology, and thoracic medicine. He has published over 242 articles, chapters, books, as well as 100 abstracts.

 Page 143       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Today he's here seeking your subcommittee's continued support for the newly created congressionally-approved National Environment Respiratory Center, the NERC. The center will provide information, conduct research, provide research resources, and facilitate communication concerning respiratory health risks of combined exposures to multiple air pollutants and pollutant mixtures.

    I believe this is vital research and if at all possible that his program be funded at the requested level of $2 million.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Redmond. Dr. Mauderly.

    Dr. MAUDERLY. Thank you, Congressman Redmond. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I'm here to ask for your continued support for the National Environmental Respiratory Center. The center was begun this year to understand the health risks of air pollutant mixtures in combined exposures to multiple pollutants.

    Our air quality regulations address air pollution one at a time. The center was founded on the premise that this strategy is reaching a point of diminishing returns. Air contaminants always occur as mixtures. No one in this room ever drew a breath that had only one air contaminant in it. We all know that.

    Air quality in this country has improved markedly over the last 20 years and there still seem to be residual effects on air quality on health. And we don't understand them very well. It is becoming more difficult to understand them. It is certainly becoming less plausible that these residual effects can be ascribed to any one pollutant or pollutant class, yet that is what we continue to attempt to do, with our research and our regulatory strategy.
 Page 144       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    It's becoming nearly impossible to isolate the effects of a single pollutant and in a way that's good news because it's becoming more true as pollutant levels fall.

    That is, the aggregate effects of the residual pollutants interact with each other more than when we had high concentrations of single pollutants that were easier to identify.

    However, there is increasing danger that the effects of dirty air also will be wrongly ascribed to a single pollutant. If we continue to chase these health effects on a single pollutant basis, when in fact they result from a mixture.

    Atmosphere reaction products that are not even measured as part of our air quality criteria are likely to be important in these effects.

    The default assumption that the risks of combinations of air pollutants are additive, or can be gained just by adding the risk of the individual pollutants may either overestimate or underestimate the true risks.

    Now I assure you that Lovelace is not the only organization that has raised these issues. There is broad agreement with the statements that I just made in industry, in the agency, and among scientists.

    However, the problem is very complex and before now no organization has taken it on in a serious, integrating way. EPA has a budding one-atmosphere program in this field, but it does not yet include health research.
 Page 145       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    NIHS solicited grant proposals on chemical mixtures, but this program doesn't focus on air.

    NIOSH's strategic plan acknowledges the importance of mixtures in the workplace, and yet NIOSH has no significant research initiative in this field.

    There are a set of common needs that must be met but these and other efforts to meld into the kind of initiatives that will truly move us forward. There needs to be a champion organization or activity to raise the issue to a critical level and catalyze the efforts of other organizations.

    Some organization has to ensure that the right people get together to benchmark what we know, to prioritize information needs and develop research approaches. There needs to be a resource for information on what is presently known on ongoing research and research resources in this specialized field.

    There needs to be user facilities which agency, university, and industry researchers can access to avoid the need to duplicate some of the specialized research facilities that are needed in this area.

    Now meeting these needs and conducting research is exactly what the new center is intended. The project is off to a running start. The information resource is already developing, EPA and other organizations are already proposing how this resource can meet their unmet needs.
 Page 146       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    A superb scientific advisory committee of eight individuals from academia, EPA, and industry have been established and their credentials, could I recite them, testify to the creditability and importance of the effort.

    The facilities of the center are already being accessed by other researchers. Significantly to me, several managers within EPA have already acknowledged, albeit verbally, that this is one earmark that will actually do the Agency some good.

    We fully expect the time will come when a yearly appropriation by Congress will not be necessary. But this year, however, congressional support is necessary to ensure the continuation of the developing of the center. So, we seek $2 million for fiscal year 1999, identical to the 1998 appropriation.

    We're also seeking support from industry and other resources with the intent of eventually matching, or even exceeding, the amount provided through EPA.

    Thank you for the opportunity to give you this update and make this request.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Mauderly. There is no reason why you would have any idea that many years ago I had the privilege of chairing a subcommittee that dealt with air quality in California, coming from a district that is probably the most impacted district in the country, and I remember 25 years ago we were talking about the need to find the health impact of ozone upon people's who lives were going to change by regulation or otherwise.
 Page 147       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Hope springs eternal. So, please, do feel to come back one more time, if necessary, next year.

    Dr. MAUDERLY. We'll do that.

    Mr. LEWIS. And we'll try to do what we can to help. Questions?

    Mr. PRICE. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for being here.

    Dr. MAUDERLY. Thank you very much.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see. We'll move on here. Is Otto Raabe, Dr. Raabe here? Did I pronounce that correctly?
 Page 148       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. RAABE. My name is Otto Raabe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon about issues related to radiation safety.

    Some of the earlier witnesses talking about the problem of radiation safety between the two agencies; my testimony relates to this.

    I am a professor at the University of California-Davis, I'm from northern California and I am a specialist in radiation biology and biophysics.

    I am also the current president of the Health Physics Society. The Health Physics Society is the association of professionals who specialize in radiation safety, sometimes people get confused by the name, but what we're interested in, what we do is radiation safety and safeguarding the health of people and the environment from potential hazardous exposure to radiation.

    The society has a number of position statements and I've included three of them today with my testimony. They are on Radiation Risk in Perspective, one on Radiation Dose Limits for the General Public, and one on Radiation Standards for Cleanup and Restoration and I ask that those be included in the record with the rest of my testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. We'll include your entire testimony in the record and additional material will be included in our file.
 Page 149       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. RAABE. Okay, thank you very much. I think the main point of my written testimony is that excessively stringent radiation safety standards will cause the cost to the U.S. Government for radiation to skyrocket without any real measurable improvement in human health.

    And this is, I think, a very, it's a serious matter to our society and I think it should be to your committee too, because I think we can save money by adopting reasonable standards for protecting health and also give us an opportunity to economically do the cleanups.

    Now I'm aware the Subcommittee has already considered the interaction of various Federal agencies, and particularly the role of the Environmental Protection Agency, in these standards. The EPA, of course, absorbed the functions of the old Federation Radiation Council in 1970. So they've been given guidelines and they've been publishing various guidance reports and most of those reports have been tabulations of dosimetry models, and so forth, very useful.

    But the society is very concerned right now about this draft report called Federal Guidance Report No. 13, unlucky 13. We think it is a very unfortunate document because it sort of continues this process of trying to reduce spending for lower and lower values.

    Now the methodology in this report is complex, but basically they have combined some very sophisticated dosimetry models which we believe to be excellent with some very speculative linear dose-response models that are not proven, they are strictly speculation and after actually conflict with existing data.
 Page 150       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The report also speaks to risk-coefficients for cancer based upon this combination. This is done for radionuclides which are inhaled, injected, or present on the environment based on external radiation of the human body. The problem here is that the models used are imaginary, they are unreliable, and they grossly underestimate the risk.

    The tabulated values are wrong, and the reestimated risks are unverifiable, but people are going to rely on these values and so this is the risk of these radionuclides

    Now the way they do this is by what is called a linear best-response model. In the commission statement on Radiation Risk in Perspective, our society has specifically said that we can assign risk using this model for doses below 10 rem, which is a pretty large dose of radiation, and this document presumes to be able to actually assign these risks.

    You may ask me, what is this linear model? I can give you an example I use with my students. Suppose you have a hurricane in Miami. And the winds blow for 24 hours at 100 miles per hour and 10 people are killed during that hurricane.

     Now if you want to compile a linear risk model for this, as the EPA does in this document, what you do just say, well, if the winds blow at 10 miles per hour for 24 hours, then 1 person would be killed.

    It's a proportion. Or if the winds blow at 1 mile per hour, at 10 continual days, 1 person would be killed. I find that nonsense, but that is exactly the methodology used here which our society recommends against.
 Page 151       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Now I think there is a problem between agencies that was brought up earlier because of the Commission's 25 millirem standard and the EPA cutting back funds. This is not protective enough.

    I can say from our society's point of view, from my own point of view as a professional in this field for 30 years, there is no known or expected risk with either of these doses. This is a truly artificial problem that has developed. This controversy is totally artificial.

    The NRC's 25 millirem standard is more than satisfactory for those patients. It is well established, but the EPA does have its Federal guidance prerogatives, so there is a problem here that I think the Congress needs to consider. It is going to be costly if we continually have this problem, where we have lower and lower dose estimates and an interaction between the agencies where problems exist. So I would suggest that perhaps the Committee can look into the whole standard-setting process because, as I say, it does involve money.

    I think this thing with FGR–13 should be withdrawn. Either they are going to use the numbers in these tables or they are going to actually go here and read these numbers off to three significant figures. I have data that I've discussed with EPA that show that they are wrong.

    Your subcommittee should consider alternate mechanisms for guidance on radiation safety because right now there obviously is a problem. Perhaps America needs a new interagency council that will provide Federal guidance based on some consensus, using all available scientific and all the expertise that we have in several Federal agencies. The Department of Energy has considerable expertise in the radiation safety area, as does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, perhaps more than the EPA.
 Page 152       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I do think that such congressional action will markedly reduce the costs of safety and clean-up operations.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Do the members have questions of Dr. Raabe?

    Dr. Raabe, as I indicated, it is important for you to know that we don't hold these hearings for outside witnesses lightly and I very much appreciate your testimony and your effort to be here.

    Mr. RAABE. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. It is significant for us to have people of professional standing with scientific background who will come and help us communicate to EPA that we need to make sure that that scientific advice and counsel that is available to our agencies ought to be used both in terms of their practical experience in the world out there where people have to live and work, and we want these programs, if they are going to be credible, to reflect a world that is both cost-effective, but also addresses the question of people's health. So your testimony is welcome and we appreciate your being here.

    Mr. RAABE. Thank you very much. I have talked to EPA about this.

 Page 153       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. I gathered that.

    Mr. RAABE. And I must say the people involved are sincere but they are members of a healthy society and so it's a sincere effort but it's a modeling approach that they use that is a very simplistic one that, unfortunately, just overestimates.

    Mr. LEWIS. One of our difficulties is that, whether we are talking about these standards of radiation, or standards that relate to air quality questions, any number of other regulatory activities, sometimes it seems that a panel of scientists ends up being selected to help establish conclusions rather than to work on not only an effective analysis but solutions that lead to real public policy change.

    So we appreciate your being here very much.

    Mr. RAABE. Thank you very much.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 154       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, next we have Jared Blum, the president of the—let's see, I'll have to get my glasses on for that one. [Laughter.]

    Jared Blum. Where'd you get the name Jared?

    Mr. BLUM. Biblical. It's been in the family for quite a long time.

    Mr. LEWIS. One of our colleagues, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, has a young boy that's now about 5 years old, 4 years old? Joe McDade, his boy's name is Jared, first time I've heard it since reading the Bible.

    Mr. BLUM. Thank you sir, and I appreciate your patience and your attention on a long day. I am Jared Blum and I do represent the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers, they are the leading commercial insulation manufacturers in the United States, manufacturing high-performance foam insulation. I am here today in support of, or to paraphrase Shakespeare, I am here to praise the EPA, not to bury them.

    We all have our concerns and disagreements with that agency, but on this particular day, I think I'm here to praise a voluntary program that they have implemented over the several years called the Energy Star Program. It is not climatic control; it is dealing with a voluntary approach to a very important issue and that is the quality of the housing stock that we now are putting together for future generations to live in.
 Page 155       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Energy Star programs, in our view, are well-run, and are relatively inexpensive. The President's program I think does ask for approximately $19 million. We're asking for the Committee's favorable consideration for that.

    We believe EPA should be applauded for its creative and economically-sound thinking in finding voluntary solutions to environmental problems.

    The Energy Star homes program basically is an information program and labeling program which encourages builders to participate who construct homes that exceed what is known as the model energy code by 30 percent. The model energy code is a voluntary standard adopted by individual States which has the input of industry entities such as local homebuilders, et cetera. So it is a voluntary standard. In many States it has been adopted by States as a mandatory standard, States like California.

    Energy Star homes are new homes, and by our reckoning the last two years, we've had over 500 homes that have been built to those standards. These homes have return on investment for the homebuilder significantly outweighing the initial investment in energy performance.

    The goal of the Energy Star Homes program is to increase the market share of Energy Star Homes to 10 percent of new home construction by 2002, which would be about 100,000 homes. They will have both economic and environmental benefits. The homes sold by the year 2000 will represent an energy savings over their lifetime or their mortgage lifetime of 30 years of about $1.8 billion.
 Page 156       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The environmental benefits set out small but grow impressively over the next 13 years. The construction of Energy Star Homes will result in annual CO2 emission reductions of about .3 million metric tons, which is equivalent to removing more than 55,000 cars from the road. One of the things that we don't keep in mind as we focus so much on cafe standards and the role of automobiles is that actually the average home uses more energy per day than the average car.

    One of the programs that we're very familiar with in addition to Energy Star Homes is Energy Star Insulation. As you might imagine, we've had some expertise in that area. The program with EPA is promoting the use of insulation in homes as well as buildings that are going to be retrofitted. It's an educational program for the consumer to understand the pay back of utilizing insulation in their homes. Companies that partner with EPA get to use an EPA logo on their product.

    I will get to the end, so you guys can move forward. The bottom line is we believe that the use of the EPA's program in the short term—we don't believe it's one of the programs where we come back every year, year in and year out, for funding—we think what you want to do is change the dynamics in the construction industry to appreciate how you get an Energy Star Home and energy efficient home built in a cost effective manner. We think once you plant the seeds of a new and more sustainable market, that the EPA program, unlike so many others, can fade away and not be funded any more.

    I thank you for your time and I'll be willing to take any questions you might have.
 Page 157       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Blum. Questions?

    Mr. PRICE. Thank you for being here. I have no questions.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Thomas Yuill? Did I pronounce that correctly?

    Mr. YUILL. Pretty close, Mr. Chairman. It's Yuill.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, Dr. Yuill? I won't even try to pronounce NASULGC. [Laughter.]
 Page 158       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. YUILL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Committee for this opportunity to present testimony on the fiscal year 1999 budget request for EPA. I also want to commend you on your leadership of the Committee and the focus on the environment, and for the continuing efforts of the whole Committee for improving the environmental science capabilities of our country.

    I am Dr. Tom Yuill, Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I am providing this statement for NASULGC, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. I currently chair it's EPA partnership task force between EPA and NASULGC.

    For those of you who may not be familiar with NASULGC, it's the Nation's oldest higher education association with over 190 member institutions. Among them, the 17 historically black institutions with representation from all 50 States. The association supports high quality public education by enhancing the capacity of member institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and outreach missions.

    I'll focus my comments this afternoon on EPA's Office of Research and Development, specifically it's Science to Achieve Results, or STAR program.

    I'm very grateful to the committee for having invited the previous testimony, which has provided a wonderful segue for underscoring the need for solid science to undergo public policy and regulation. We in NASULGC strongly support the Agency's $100 million request for fiscal year 1999 for competitively awarded extramural research grants under the STAR program. We also recommend $15 million for 300 graduate fellowships, which is $5 million above the EPA request.
 Page 159       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The relatively small amount the Agency invests in STAR within it's $7.8 billion contributes significantly to sound science. Without which the Agency will not be able to correctly identify and develop sound management and mitigation strategies for emerging or existing environmental problems, and some of the testimony I think we just heard does certainly point that out.

    Before the inception of STAR, the quality of EPA science was questioned by many authorities, including this committee. The highly successful four-year-old STAR program was a good example of a productive, cost effective, university/Agency partnership, that assures the highest quality of science through a rigorous peer review process.

    Although EPA has been widely criticized for insufficient use of peer review, the Agency is making important progress. We strongly support EPA's effort to thoroughly integrate peer review into all of it's scientific and technical products. EPA has worked with NASULGC to greatly expand it's base of qualified peer reviewers. The Association has utilized it's extensive database of expertise within the member institutions to help EPA locate the highest caliber candidates.

    NASULGC also supports graduate fellowships which are an investment to produce the next generation of scientists and engineers, not just for regulatory agencies or for academia, but for industry as well. The need for knowledge of environmental science is necessary to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

    Since 1994, NASULGC has worked closely with EPA's ORD in partnership to help the Agency develop and implement science and research reform. We will continue to work with ORD on a variety of joint initiatives to enhance the quality of environmental science in priority areas and to facilitate environmental information dissemination to decision makers and to the public.
 Page 160       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Again, I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and will welcome any questions that you might have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Yuill. Questions, Mr. Price?

    Mr. PRICE. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on the relationship between the Office of Research and Development budget and the total research budget. You refer to this in a critical way in your testimony and what catches my attention is the reminder you offer of the ORD research agenda—particulate matter, microbials and disinfectants in water, algal blooms, endocrine disruptors, and so forth. You're suggesting that the agenda may not be pursued as extensively as possible because of this budget shift.

    Mr. YUILL. That's our concern. The curious thing that seems to us is that the ORD budget, which is ostensibly the core research effort within the Agency, is actually going to undergo a 9.5 percent reduction. The overall research budget within the Agency is increasing. So that research money is going somewhere else. And one of the concerns—it's uneasiness that we have—is that those resources are not going to go into the high priority items that have been developed with the strategic plan that's been done very thoughtfully within EPA with a lot of outside input. And it's going to go into other things and will not be as effective as a well integrated focused program would be within ORD.

    It's something that we will be watching with considerable concern. Of course, we're delighted that they are going to propose to continue the STAR budget at $100 million, bringing the best science and the best scientists outside the Agency to bear on the significant problems that they've identified. But we don't know why the ORD overall budget has been reduced and that money is going other places, or if it will be as effectively directed as it would have been, in our opinion, within ORD.
 Page 161       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. PRICE. Something that we will want to look at. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Your testimony is very worthwhile in that connection for following these dollars to make sure they are not, for example, not being diverted for regulatory activities when they were meant for science in the first place. Your input is appreciated. Thank you for being here.

    Mr. YUILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness from the Solar Unity Network, Scott Sklar.

 Page 162       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SKLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Please come up. It's good to see you.

    Mr. SKLAR. It's good to see you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. SKLAR. First of all, I commend you for getting a bearded director and getting diversity in the political workplace. I think that's PC. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. It's very important. Some guys are more conservative with some things and some with others.

    Mr. SKLAR. I understand that. [Laughter.]

    I run the trade association for the solar industry. We have 165 companies that manufacture solar products in the U.S. and 500 companies in State chapters, 40 companies in the State of New Jersey, 120 in California, and so on. We're growing. We cut ribbon on 4 new automated manufacturing plants in the U.S. with 200 to 400 each in 1996, another 4 in 1997, and 6 to 8 in 1998. So we're in a big growth curve. 70 percent of our products are going to Third World where 2 billion people don't have access to electricity and another 1 billion have access to electricity of less than 10 hours a day. We lead the world technologically.

    So why do I come here? There are three programs that this subcommittee has jurisdiction over—and I'm not asking you for more money, but I am asking you for help and access.
 Page 163       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    With EPA, this subcommittee added report language last year that, for the first time, told EPA that instead of looking at dealing with the end of the smokestack, end of the tailpipe, let's promote pollution prevention technologies that are cost effective so that we can solve the problem at the beginning, not at the end. That, in fact, had a chain reaction and now we're having a dialogue for the first time.

    What we're asking you frankly is to now go one step further with them in terms of directive language to include us, like my colleague from PIMA, in the energy STAR programs and in some of the verification and validation programs. What most people don't realize is we are in the marketplace now manufacturing and what EPA can do using it's already existing resources at ORD and their air quality shop, is to show what we can do.

    And I brought commercial, off-the-shelf technology solar roofing shingles. This is produced in Michigan at a plant. This part produces electricity; it replaces your existing roofing shingles. It is very expensive. It's the most expensive tile shingle in California. But it does produce electricity at the same time, 25 year life. I'd like you to touch it. A few energy sources that, Mr. Price, that you can touch without something happening.

    But, at any rate, the fact of the matter is that this technology as we scale up with these new plants, will come down in cost. Twenty-one States have already signed into law net metering legislation which allows homeowners to have an interconnection and to be paid a rate in excess of what they used—21 States, by partisan, and growing, in a year and a half. So you see there's a lot of popular support for this.

 Page 164       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    VA—the same kind of issue in their lending programs. They are authorized, just like EPA, to promote energy efficiency and solar. But when you call up, they don't know anything about it. All we ask is that they're authorized to do it and they determine under their own rules we're cost effective, we should be an allowable commercial like they do insulation or energy efficient light bulbs.

    Lastly, with HUD, the Administration has proposed a program called the Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing, PATH. And actually it's a good transfer program. It's a way to sort of reinvigorate how builders and others, architects, can incorporate U.S. technology, a blend of them in housing. We are theoretically one of the things they're supposed to do, and without some by partisan congressional prodding. In the industry, we are the largest producers of this technology in the world—these 165 companies—we have 1/2 the world market. But you can not sustain the global market unless you have demonstrably growing domestic market.

    So that's what I'm here for. Not asking for big dollars, but asking for your oversight, your continued support. You've been really good for us, and we've been growing as a result of being good for us. But you can bring clean technology to the marketplace without command and control and just providing what everybody else's access in the Federal tools.

    Mr. LEWIS. Very good. I appreciate very much your testimony. Mr. Price.

    Mr. PRICE. No questions. Thank you for being here.

 Page 165       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your paying such close attention to my staff director.

    Mr. SKLAR. Somebody had to. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Sklar.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Vanessa Leiby? Hi, Vanessa, who is with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. She is the Executive Director. You've heard me talk about summarizing statements and your testimony will be in the record.

    Ms. LEIBY. It sure will. Good afternoon. I didn't bring any props, but you've all had some of our drinking water, so we've already got the props warm. We appreciate that.
 Page 166       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    As you indicated, I'm Vanessa Leiby. I'm the Executive Director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, also known as ASDWA. In that capacity, we represent all of the 56 States and territories that implement and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act.

    My written comments are here. I also brought copies of our annual report for 1997 to give you additional information about the activities and accomplishments of the States over the course of the last year.

    In the few minutes I have today, I'm really pleased to report on the successes from both the State's EPA and the water system in our efforts to move rapidly forward in implementing the new Safe Drinking Water Act.

    To tell you a little bit about that. To date, 49 of the 50 states have received legislative authority for their drinking water state revolving loan fund. 27 of those States have received approval for their application packages, and that translates into about $530 million that's now available for water system infrastructure improvements and various sites that are authorized. EPA has and as we fully expect that all the States will submit their applications by the September deadline.

    In addition, all the 50 States have developed annual compliance reports that have provided information to the public on water system compliance and a new consumer public right to know provisions in the law. And these reports specifically list the systems that have violated maximum contaminate levels, treatment techniques, variances in exemptions were significant monitoring violations. We've also provided that information to EPA and it will be made available in a national report that will be published in July.
 Page 167       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Almost every State that has indicated a new for a new administrative penalty authority, some new enforcement provisions, has submitted legislation. Many States have also obtained legislative authority to prevent the formation of new non-viable water systems. States have also actively participated in the numerous stakeholder meetings that the agency has held throughout the year, covering operator certification, capacity development, listing of technologies for small systems, the SRL, consumer confidence source water protection, and the list goes on and on and on and on.

    I want you to be aware of the fact that this is in addition to implementing the many and varied responsibilities and programs and regulations that they've continued to have to implement to protect public health and ensure the provision of safe water. This workload's going to continue to increase and expand over the next few years as EPA and the States move forward to meet all of the new deadlines and responsibilities in the State drinking water act.

    So I've come here today to inform you of the enthusiasm, the successes of the past year, the strides that the States are making, but also to respectfully request that the Committee provide an additional $10 million for the public water supply supervision program. This $10 million will demonstrate to the States that Congress understands and appreciates their efforts, as well as recognize the many treatments the States have made in the past year in light of the fact that we have not received an increase in that level of funding since Fiscal Year 1996.

    This new funding will be critical as States move forward to develop capacity development strategies, source water assessment, and delineation programs, and revise and expand their operator certification programs. And these are only a few of the new program responsibilities that States face in the coming year.
 Page 168       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    States cannot continue to expand these programs without new Federal dollars. While they are willing to meet and exceed the match requirements and have been historically willing to do that, they cannot fund all of the new components of the law by themselves.

    I also respectfully request that the Committee fully fund the Drinking Water SRF at the authorized level of the $1 billion for fiscal year 1999. You've heard many others with that same request. Obviously, you're aware of the Agency's drinking water infrastructure needs survey, and you've recognized the incredible short term infrastructure needs that really far surpass the current funding that's available. The increase in the $225 million to that authorized level of $1 billion will ensure that funding is available for more water systems and will allow the fund to begin to revolve at the pace that's been projected by EPA.

    We also support the authorized the funding $10 million for small systems to collect and analyze samples, water samples, so that EPA can develop new regulations in the future based on sound science and occurrence information.

    We support funding of $2 million for EPA to continue development of an assiduous State database to ensure that accurate, quality data is available at the national level for critical decision making and also public access to the information.

    In addition, we support the $5 million that you've also heard testimony on for the AWWA Research Foundation to continue it's health affects research and we support adequate funding for drinking water health affects research at EPA.
 Page 169       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We also support EPA's drinking water program and also funds available for technical assistance, which you've heard about already.

    The States and EPA water systems have taken the challenge of providing drinking water very seriously. We have collaborated in the stakeholder process and have taken the necessary steps to begin expanding and enhancing our programs. I hope that you will join me in acknowledging these efforts and demonstrate Congress' continued support for providing the necessary increases for fiscal year 1999 to ensure that these programs continue to meet congressional intent as well as the needs of the American people.

    I thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Ms. Leiby, very much for being with us. Mr. Price.

    Mr. PRICE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you very much.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
 Page 170       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. LEWIS. Lino DeAlmeida?

    Mr. DEALMEIDA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. National Utility Contractors Association.

    Mr. DEALMEIDA. Yes, sir.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. He's a New Jersey resident, Mr. Chairman. We're very please to have you.

    Mr. DEALMEIDA. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen, and Mr. Price, thank you very much for having us here today. I'm President of the National Utility Contractors. We're approximately a 2,000 member organization of contractors and associate members that supply the materials, as well as install, the pipelines of clean drinking water, as well as take care of our sewers.

    I'm a small contractor for New Jersey. I'm down in Middlesex County. I've been there all my life. I done work throughout the Northeast, as well as overseas. My company is called Consolidated Construction Management. We do pipe work as well as general construction. My family has been in business for about seven years. My grandfather immigrated from Portugal, started working in New York City, and my dad got into the business when he was in his 20's. I started when I was about 9 years old as a water boy and worked my way up after about six years of being a mason's helper, doing supervision and eventually getting actively involved in the company.
 Page 171       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    You've got our text. I don't want to read it into the record, but I would like to make a few comments if I may.

    Mr. LEWIS. We'll include it in it's entirety in the record, so we appreciate that.

    Mr. DEALMEIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to talk to you about why the State Revolving Fund program is important us—both the wastewater as well the drinking water.

    The drinking water, as you know, is a public health issue. Twenty percent of our population drinks water that is contaminated either by lead, fecal bacteria, radiation, or toxic chemicals. I've got here a cutout that one of our contractor members up in Rhode Island took out a few years ago. We've made many of these and brought these to some of your committee meetings and other committee meetings. That's an old water main and that's what we call a crud—that's the best word I could give you. [Laughter.]

    Not very technical, but that's what it looks like, that develops inside the pipes. So if you had—I guess that was originally a six inch pipe—so now you've got maybe an inch-and- 1/2 of flow through there and you can imagine all those rotten little particles that are in your water when you turn on your faucet. It's especially evident if you have broken water main or if you have a fire and you've got all that volume rushing through. This stuff breaks out and you wind up with brown cruddy water for a few days or even longer until it all flushes out of the system.
 Page 172       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    There's something like 2 million people every year in the United States that become ill because of water-related illnesses from pipes like these. There's something like 1,200 deaths every year as a result of that. So you could see why it's a very important issue, not just to utility contractors, but to the entire country.

    Regarding our wastewater, it's important to us, Mr. Chairman, because of number one, development. Obviously, if our country is going to continue to develop, if our children are going to have their own homes, they need to have sewage pipe. They need some place for that sewage to go. For every private development—every development that's built—there is a trunk sewer that's taking that sewage to a treatment plant.

    I'd like to just share with you, by the way, the first job I did as a sewer contractor as a helper on a sewage job for my dad. I asked one of the superintendents my first day on the job when I got out of high school—and I was wearing clean boots, everything was clean—I asked him, ''What should I know about working in the sewers?'' We were working on the live sewer in the City of Newark. We were taking a sewer line and replacing it. And he says, ''Well, just remember, it flows downhill and never suck on your fingers.'' I think you know why that was the case.

    Some of the other important reasons for wastewater cleanup are obviously our estuaries need to be maintained as clean—our rivers, our oceans. Plus, a good portion of our wetlands are destroyed as a result of sewage flowing into our streams and rivers.

    By way of a little bit of history, I've probably been responsible for I'm sure at least $200 million worth of sewage projects or clean water projects in the State of New Jersey, and that doesn't include overseas and other work we've done throughout the country. I've worked on CSO projects that have cleaned up Arthur Hill, Woodbridge and Carterette, New Jersey. I've worked on a major interceptor sewer down in Camden County that basically was responsible for cleanup of the Cooper River and obviously the Delaware River as well. I did, obviously, a very small part of it. I've also worked on the Guanque Water Treatment Plant up in North New Jersey that supplies the cities of Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken with water, so I've been actively involved in this business.
 Page 173       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In closing, we're in support of the SRF program. We thank you for all the help you've given us in the past. We are in the midst of preparing some studies—or having studies prepared by Apogee—which will be available in several weeks that will give you the benefit of what we think are the funding levels that are required not just for this year, but over the next 20 years.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. DeAlmeida, we appreciate very much your testimony, your being here today. Mr. Price, do you have any questions?

    Mr. PRICE. No questions.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me say that we welcome this fellow New Jerseyan and for his very refreshingly blunt testimony. This is a national situation and you've certainly given us a very personal and familial flavor which we appreciate. Your words won't be lost on the Committee in terms of our work on this committee. We thank you for your time and effort.

    Mr. DEALMEIDA. Well, thank you, sir. And just in case I had problems I brought my son who's a weight lifter. He lugged this around for us, so I should thank him too.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We're pleased and I'm sure the Chair is pleased to have you both. What's your son's name? We'll put it in the record.

 Page 174       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. DEALMEIDA. Christopher DeAlmeida.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It's good to have you here. Where do you play football? We're pleased to have a father and a son combination here. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    offset folios 803 to 807 insert here
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, Mr. Bill Frank, Jr., with Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission? How are you, sir?

    Mr. FRANK. Just fine.

    Mr. LEWIS. You've been waiting patiently. We appreciate it.

    Mr. FRANK. You're waiting patiently. It's a long day. [Laughter.]

 Page 175       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    My name is Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman. I've been in front of the Committee for the past seven years now. I appreciate the Committee and the Chair allowing me to testify.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate it.

    Mr. FRANK. We have a lot of salmon management work going on for the State of Washington up in the State of Washington. We have endangered species now as well as California clear to Alaska. Several species are being listed and all of it goes back to the need for clean water and work in model programs and working as a partnerships with the Federal, the State, and the local governments and the tribes. A lot of the model programs initiatives are out there that we've been working on with the industry and making sure that we're all finding a balance and working together for the future.

    I'm not going to read any of my testimony. I just wanted to say how important the salmon is to all of us. As the Chairman knows, we're all involved in putting a comprehensive recovery plan from California to Alaska now and all the watersheds along the Pacific Ocean and that's a very big job. It takes a long time. It isn't an overnight thing that's going to happen. It's going to be a long time.

    We support what the Committee is doing and we support our clean water act and all of our other acts. Our testimony pretty well spells out where we are and what we're doing. It's a pleasure to come here and hear the testimony here. There's some good people in this country, still doing some good things, and it's very important to all of us.

    Mr. LEWIS. Right. Well, Mr. Frank, we will include your entire testimony in the record. We appreciate your being here. I particularly like that salmon around your neck. [Laughter.]
 Page 176       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRANK. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate it very much. Hello Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Yes sir, Mr. Chairman.

    [The information follows:]
    offset folios 811 to 816 insert here
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Next on our list is Dr. R. Michael McClain. Dr. McClain is from the Society of Toxicology. Welcome. And if you've heard us say that your testimony will be summarized and we'll include it all in the record——

    Dr. MCCLAIN. Yes, yes, I'll try to be brief.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

 Page 177       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Dr. MCCLAIN. I'm Michael McClain, President of the Society of Toxicology, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come here today to testify on the behalf of research support for the Environmental Protection Agency. I don't have a prop, but I am wearing a button and it's for doubling NIH funding over the next five years.

    In any event, the Society of Toxicology is a professional organization that brings together about 4,000 toxicologists from industry, academia, and the government and the government agencies. A major of the Society is the incorporation of sound science in the legislation and regulation.

    We work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and also the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and believe that the research supported by these agencies is important to ensure the policies affecting health and the environment are based on sound science. And in particular, we appreciate the support of this subcommittee and the Superfund basic research program. Each year the Administration has recommended the cut, but this committee has provided leadership to restore the funding for that and we're most appreciative of that. But, as you know, the funding for the Superfund basic research program is funding through the Environmental Protection Agency and goes to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to support university and medical research on health affects and superfund issues. Currently this involves more than 1,000 scientists from 70 universities that are supported for this and it's really the only scientific research program which is dedicated to these specific kind of sites. We hope that you'll continue funding this year again at the level of about $40 million.

    I'd also like to mention the Worker Training Program. Again, that's run by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and this provides classroom instruction and field expertise for Superfund site and emergency workers. Today, over 450,000 workers nationwide have been trained in this program. And we hope that you will continue the same level of support for this program.
 Page 178       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    With respect to the airborne particulate matter research, we are very pleased by the approach that was taken by the Subcommittee last year to initiate a comprehensive program for airborne particulates. We support the involvement of the National Academy of Sciences in developing a research plan. The report by the National Academy proposes a comprehensive research program with short term research efforts focuses on developing a better understanding of how these particulates affect human health. We would recommend support of at least $49.6 million to support this program for this coming year.

    I'd also like to mention the endocrine disruptors, which are compounds in our environment which may have an affect on thyroid, reproductive, or development. At the present time, however, there is diverse scientific opinion with respect to the extent that such environmental agents affect human health. The Society is supportive of the congressional initiatives to pursue research on the affects of environmental agents. We believe, however, that Congress should use scientific experts to assist in the development of legislation but should refrain from mandating specific approaches such as the development of testing and screening procedures for widespread use. The Society recommends the Congress should involve a scientific body, such as the National Academy, to assess the extent to which these environmental agents are a human health problem. In the case of the particulate air pollution that I mentioned before, Congress did involve the National Academy and required and the development of an integrated research strategy to address this issue in the absence of mandating any specific approach. And this example, I think, is more keeping with the scientific process and what we would recommend that the Congress now do in the case of the endocrine disruptors.

    Sound science is essential to environmental health policy and the Society is made up of many of the leading experts in the field of toxicology who would be willing to serve as resource to Congress on environmental health and safety issues. The public wants to know whether their communities are safe from hazardous contaminates in the air they breathe and the water they drink and we believe that the research supported by the Environmental Protection Agency and NIEHS provides policy makers with the data you need to make decisions on environmental health regulations.
 Page 179       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I appreciate the opportunity to be here on behalf and be happy to answer to any questions you might have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. McClain, we appreciate very much your testimony and you're being with us as well. Could I ask, Mr. Price, any questions? Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. PRICE. No questions, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate Dr. McClain's testimony on the importance of this basic research program passed through EPA to the NIEHS, administered by NIEHS. That's helpful information.

    Mr. STOKES. Let me also join the same comment on the importance of this type of testimony as we undertake this particular area of our appropriation function and we appreciate very much your comments.

    Dr. MCCLAIN. There is so much many spent on the Superfund—we would actually even like to see more money going into research. I think that could really help the situation. We appreciate your support so far.

    Mr. LEWIS. You're going right to the heart of Mr. Frelinghuysen interest.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, thank you, Dr. McClain, for being here. Mr. Chairman and Members, as a constituent of mine, I could have used him when I was speaking on some of the proposals for Superfund reform before the National Council of Jewish Women last night in my home town. Our own State has had more sites than any other and that track record isn't very good. And I'm also for more funding for the NIH and certainly whatever the EPA is doing ought to be basing it's decisions, it's actions, on sound science. We need to get about the business of acting on sound science and getting things cleaned up. So, to the extent that your society can work towards those ends, whether provincially or nationally, that would be most beneficial. You've been here before and we appreciate your testimony because you know of what you speak from a very personal standpoint coming from our State. We really appreciate it.
 Page 180       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Dr. MCCLAIN. Well, we appreciate that. And, like I said, that we in the Society are willing to help out when we can, if you need our expertise. I don't know what we can do with the Jewish women in New Jersey, but——

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You'd be surprised. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. McClain.

    Dr. MCCLAIN. We're certainly available to help out.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness of The Academy of Natural Sciences is Paul Hanle. Dr. Hanle?

 Page 181       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Dr. HANLE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I wanted to say hello also to Mr. Frelinghuysen, who served as the Acting Chairman of the Committee last year, when we had a chance to testify. This is the second time and we hope we have the opportunity to convince you that this is an exciting program for funding and pursuing the Urban Rivers Awareness Program. Thank you, the rest of the Members of the Committee, for having me.

    I wanted to introduce The Academy of Natural Sciences, which is the oldest operating natural history museum in America. It's also one of the leading research institutions, research museums. We do research and provide public education programs that study the environment and it's diverse species.

    Our impact is not only regional, but national and international. Among the things that we do is a major program of water quality research that was started by Dr. Ruth Patrick. And in fact, we have the longest standing program of assessing the quality of U.S. waterways founded by Dr. Patrick, who was a National Medal of Science recipient in 1948. And although we have one of the finest collections of specimens, 25 million specimens in the natural history museum, it is that active program of research and public outreach which we think is very, very important. And in fact, I would say that the unique aspect of The Academy is that we combine this extraordinarily strong research program with public outreach and education about the research that we are undertaking.

    And one of our new visions is the program that I will be talking about today, the Urban Rivers Awareness Program, which is a comprehensive effort designed for students and the public to better understand the natural and human history of urban water sheds. We have partners in this in the Philadelphia Water Company, Historic Bartram's Garden, the Philadelphia Park Commission, and we have also extended this program to include the Patuxent River and the Tapsco River Watershed so that it covers both the Delaware River Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay.
 Page 182       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Urban Rivers Awareness Program is very important in trying to engage youngsters and the general public about the significance of maintaining—understanding, maintaining, and improving—the water quality in these rivers, these urban rivers. It is astonishing, but true, that many of the youngsters that we take out in our educational outreach programs think of water quality and river conditions as something that is out in the country, but indeed the rivers that we study are also rivers that go through major urban centers and are part of the urban landscape. Members of the communities that surround these rivers need to, and we find want to, find more about the watershed through programs such as this.

    What we're proposing is to develop an 8,000 square foot exhibition and a public outreach program, an innovative web site, as well as conditions of the watershed annual conference. And perhaps the most exciting program is what we call the icon of the program, that is, a scientific and educational experience that is carried out on the water from research boats with research scientists as well, students who will have opportunities in Wilmington, Delaware, as well as Calvert and Baltimore Counties, Maryland, and of course, in Philadelphia, our home base, to undertake these programs. On the water visits which will be able to hold at least two classrooms of youngsters per each program that we run and we'll have a series of stations that will do water monitoring, biological sampling of the water. These programs will get youngsters and families involved in the water process—understanding the water process, as well as some of the exciting things that surround the water, overview of historical landmarks, and so forth.

    The Academy is excited to begin this Urban Rivers Awareness Program and we've designed it to study the specific watersheds where the Academy is present, that is in Philadelphia, near Wilmington, and on the Chesapeake Bay. But we think that this is so innovative that it will be a national model and we're hopeful that we can apply this to other institutions.
 Page 183       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We thank you all for giving us the opportunity to testify and we do request that the Subcommittee provide sufficient funding for the Environmental Protection Agency to enable the Agency to support the Urban Rivers Awareness Program.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Hanle, for your testimony. Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. I'd just like to commend Dr. Hanle for his testimony. This is very important as it relates to urban areas throughout the Nation and we appreciate your testimony.

    Dr. HANLE. Thank you very much, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you for your testimony and we certainly have a number of urban of rivers that need attention as well.

    Dr. HANLE. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. STOKES. How much are you asking for?

    Dr. HANLE. We're asking for a current year $1.25 million to expand this program into these 3 areas that we're talking about.
 Page 184       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Jerry Erickson, the Metropolitan Family Services. Mr. Erickson? Here he comes.

    Mr. ERICKSON. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Jerry Erickson, President Emeritus of the Metropolitan Family Services. Congressman Stokes, you might be particularly interested in my successor who joined our staff a few days ago, Dr. Richard Jones, coming to us from the Center for Children and Families in Cleveland.

    Mr. STOKES. I know him very well. He's a fine young man, I can tell you that.

 Page 185       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. ERICKSON. Indeed. I'm very pleased that he is going to succeed me in a job where I've been in for some 25 years. Metropolitan Family Services is an historic agency in Chicago formed actually by a number of colleagues of Abraham Lincoln, including the man who nominated Lincoln for the presidency in 1860. And a group of Chicago business——

    Mr. LEWIS. That's a very good friend of Mr. Stokes. [Laughter.]

    Mr. ERICKSON. Not quite that old. [Laughter.]

    It's very interesting that those gentlemen—and they were all gentlemen in those days; no women in the crowd I guess—got together to form basically a safety net. This was long before there were any government programs or anything like that to support families, but they were interested in keeping families productive, but also in having a ready work force when the economic times called for that. And that kind of mission has been our base for all 140 years. We were chartered by the general assembly of Illinois in 1857.

    Currently, we have contact with about 100,000 families in the Chicago Metropolitan area. Along the lines of our original mission was to build the capacities of families and support their capacity so they can function as fully as they can as parents and as productive citizens in the communities. We operate through some 25 neighborhood sensors around the Chicago Metropolitan area.

    Today, I wanted to talk with you about the Roseland community which is one of those centers which is on the far south side of Chicago. It's a community that has been impacted heavily by the loss of the steel industry and all of the jobs that they provided. It's a community very much on the edge and trying to find its way back. We have been operating programs for families in this community for some 40 years.
 Page 186       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Some four years ago, we went into the community and said to groups of ministers, to groups of businessmen, to groups of school teachers is what we are—the way we are extending our resources in this community. Is it doing any good or is there something or some better way we should be using them? We've got strong support for what we were doing, but to my surprise, and to our surprise generally, they said that they thought we could work with a community in the same way we work with families—in other words, helping a community establish, what is its agenda—to bring, to bear some strategies to start working on those things.

    It's a community with a lot of strength but a lot of disorganization as well. So we put into effect a community development program that has been, I guess, successful far beyond our expectations. It has resulted in a very significant expansion of our direct service to families, but also to communities and increasingly is moving into the area of some economic development things.

    Just to give you some examples. One of the first things we did was help the community to get itself together to develop a program that we call Youth Net. The community said that their greatest need was for when a mother or impacted family or both parents are working and there's nothing to do with their kids when they come home from school. It's a community where there's a lot of violence.

    So we put together—we are the administrators of the program and the planners of the program, but most of its carried out to the YMCA, the Chicago Youth Center, to parks districts and other things like that so that families can stay where—parents can stay at work when their kids are coming home from school with some reassurance that they're going to be safe.
 Page 187       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    More recently, we've developed some things like the Family Loan Program. We developed—we raised $300,000 for a loan program. A lot of people who are living in marginal circumstances are not eligible for loans. This money is used to loan people who will not—have not been approved, cannot get approved by a bank for unexpected expenses. Usually a car breakdown is something like that, but they can't manage, they can't get to work. So we're able to make those kinds of loans.

    We're also doing some work with individual development accounts which you may be familiar with. It's a masking fund program for Walker Recipients and other low-income people who are not necessarily in the habit of saving and trying to build their assets so they can become longer term and more productive members of the community. We're harboring on a number of those kinds of programs with Shorebank—which you may have heard of. It's headquartered in a community very nearby.

    The results of all of this activity has been a need for expanded facilities. We have a plan for a $2.25 million facility to accommodate not only the work we're doing with family but with these community groups, as well, we have raised $1.25 million with some significant help from the Kresge Foundation and from the Amoco Foundation and a large number of private donors. We're looking for an additional $1 million so that we can get underway with this building program which we think is going to make a major impact in the and affecting this community.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Erickson. We appreciate your testimony. Mr. Stokes, you have a question?
 Page 188       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. STOKES. I'd just like to say to Mr. Erickson that I thought your testimony was very interesting. It's fascinating to see what you are doing in a community such as Chicago and the type of good that's being done. It just points to the fact that there is a very real need in our urban communities, in particular, for these types of organizations to function and to have an impact upon people who otherwise have nowhere to turn for the kind of help and sociological approaches you take to their lives.

    Mr. ERICKSON. Well, thanks very much. I guess as we've gotten in to this program, we've been impressed with the strength and resilience that is there in the community that has some help in mobilizing. It's pretty exciting and we're very pleased with it. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you for coming in. We appreciate your testimony very much.

    Mr. ERICKSON. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.

VA–PROJECT 541–029

 Page 189       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Mr. Edwin M. Robins, National Service Officer, who's with the Jewish War Veterans, representing the Disabled American Veterans.

    Mr. ROBINS. All right, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today to speak to you——

    Mr. LEWIS. You will summarize your statement, I'm sure, won't you?

    Mr. ROBINS. Yes I am, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. ROBINS. As a senior citizen, but also as a veteran, speaking on behalf of VA-Project 541-029. This is to alert you of serious problems involving the ambulatory care facilities of Wade Park campus of the Cleveland Veterans Administration Medical Center. We are pleased that the VA has recognized this name for over 12 years, but are alarmed at the fact that it's not in this year's budget. On behalf of all veterans in the State of Ohio, I want to address this group and bring to their oversight. There is a great need that exists for over 570,000 veterans in northeastern Ohio.
 Page 190       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Veterans are currently not being served with dignity and respect. The conditions in which we treat veterans at the Wade Park campus are overcrowded, unsafe, and they have been cited as deficient by the Joint Commission on Veterans—Accreditation of Hospital Organizations and numerous service organizations.

    The Cleveland VA Medical Center, sir, was built in 1964 as an inpatient facility. The Wade Park campus was never intended to be an outpatient facility. This facility is antiquated, inadequate for outpatient services, and it's over 34 years old. Outpatient clinics were never intended to be part of the Wade Park campus.

    Currently, the VA Medical Center provides over 50,000 male and female veterans with inpatient and outpatient health care services in a 25-county area in northeast Ohio. More than 400,000 episodes of outpatients were provided and they serviced 800 veterans who traveled to Cleveland for this service. Veterans are men and women who have served this country—and I want to stress the women, because as males we generally say veterans and think men. Even with this success, there are serious limitations at the Wade Park campus 34-year-old physical plant. These facility limitations have grown more and more troublesome and now constitute a serious impediment to the delivery of effective health care to the thousands of veterans who rely on the VA. Following are some specific examples:

    Outpatients are required to travel to multiple floors of a seven-story building with a vertical transportation that was never built or designed to carry that much traffic. Patients are provided outpatient care on every floor and in every available space.

 Page 191       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The outpatient admissions area of Wade Park is designed like a bullpen. As such, it's inadequate for ambulatory care services for outpatients—and believe me, I have seen it. It's like a nightmare.

    Diagnostic procedures are inefficient since laboratory tests and radiology procedures have to be performed in remote basement locations, far from the outpatient activities.

    Patient privacy is compromised because outpatient examination rooms open directly into corridors used by general people that traffic as they walk the halls. Many of them are partially disrobed and awaiting an exam. There are also other privacy issues involved. Customer satisfaction is guaranteed when veterans are treated in small, overcrowded waiting areas and interviewed in spaces that lack privacy and it's a lack of dignity many times for these veterans.

    Access to care is hampered by the distance between parking facility and the hospital entrance, behooves patients to walk outside, amongst traffic, and for a minimum distance of a quarter-mile. To compound the problem, the access ramp to the hospital entrance does not meet the American Disabilities Act.

    Emergency outpatient services are archaic and undersized for today's ambulatory care. Inadequate ambulatory care space forces outpatient clinics into locations away from the current outpatient setting. Of necessity, they are located throughout the facility in areas converted from inpatient units.

    Customer satisfaction is lost when patients are treated in an environment lacking proper heating and ventilation because the outpatient area is juxtaposed with a hospital's emergency entrance. During the winter, the wind blows through there like you think you were in Alaska.
 Page 192       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Quality of care is jeopardized when veterans are treated in substandard, antiquated treatment areas. Veterans experience difficulty in finding the Wade Park Division Ambulatory entrance because it is shared with the Emergency Room entrance. This entrance is cramped, crowded, and inappropriate for outpatient services. Once inside the building, patients have a tendency to walk right into the Emergency Room.

    The ambulances must compete also with trucks delivering materials to the hospital. To remain cost-efficient and competitive, the Cleveland VA Medical Center has established an outpatient surgery program and expanded all its outpatient clinics. The results has been a huge increase in outpatient visits. The Medical Center has been cited for space deficiency, violation of safety codes and a lack of patient privacy by external agencies. And I may say, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to see another Prime Time exposAE1e in Cleveland. As a result of the critical need for ambulatory care space, the Cleveland VA conducted a thorough cost-benefit analysis for the cost of new construction versus the cost of contracting care for veterans with other private sectors.

    The results have indicated none of these health care organizations provide the care at a better cost than could be provided by the Cleveland VA Medical Center. In response to the growing concerns cited by the JCAHO, the Department of Veterans Affairs has accomplished the architectural design face for $28 million. After extensive review, the direct patient care implications of this project have been found to be so great that it was ranked as the number one health care priority in the VA. Unfortunately, the project remains unfunded and progress has been halted.

 Page 193       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I can just say to you that we have waited 12 years for this project to be funded—and so far, it still hasn't been done. Funding for the highest-ranked clinical construction priority of the Department of Veterans Affairs ought to be approved. Our veterans deserve nothing less. The claim for this project is sound. The benefits it will have on lives of many veterans throughout the region is real. May I add, we've waited 22 years to get a garage and just this year, ground was broken. It is clearly evident that the outpatient services being provided at the Cleveland VA Medical Center have been seriously hampered by outdated and physically limited structures built in the early 1960's—34 years ago.

    The Cleveland VA serves over 50,000 unique veterans and potentially you'll be able to provide care to over 570,000 veterans given adequate facilities. Veterans are not being served with dignity in regards to such basic conditions as: access, privacy, efficiency, customer satisfaction and quality of care. The Cleveland VA Medical Center has fully embraced Dr. Kizer's prescription for change in the VA strategy.

    If the VA hopes to modernize property and update its standards of care to meet the driving forces of today's health care market as well as that of the future, it needs to be right. Funding for the project is absolutely essential. I beg of you that this committee reinstate the Ambulatory Care Addition Project. Adequate resources and facilities such as the Ambulatory Care Addition need to be allocated and approved in order for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Cleveland Medical Center to provide the care that our veterans deserve and have been promised. The time for action is now. The urgency cannot be overstated.

    With this in mind, I took a day off as a National Service Officer to come here today to plead to you. I have spent over 3,000 volunteer hours at that hospital with my wife so I know what their problems are. I have one last thing, that I had a veteran who came to me. His wife died, he had a stroke, and he could not get into any other nursing home. I called the VA, the man was admitted. Now after two years, I just received his death notice yesterday.
 Page 194       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of listening to me and my constituent, Mr. Stokes—I happen to be his constituent—may I just also say this man has served this Congress 30 years. On behalf of all the people in Ohio, we thank you, Mr. Stokes——

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. ROBINS. Members of the Committee, for your sensitivity, appreciation and support of veterans over the years. I thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Robins. I must say here, that of all of the constituents that we have on this committee, the Nation's veterans have the highest priority and that's true—not just in this committee—but in the Full House.

    Especially, I wanted to mention relevant to your last comment, your constituent, Mr. Stokes, has served you long and very effectively. I watched him fight for that garage, by the way, over a period of time here. With the competition in this committee, it is not a simple matter. So, indeed, you're going to miss the Louis Stokes, as we will.

    Mr. ROBINS. Oh, absolutely.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me personally just say that it's always a pleasure to see Mr. Robins here. Veterans have a great advocate in this gentleman and his testimony is always very poignant and very personal to the veterans of this country. With this facility being located in my congressional district, I do very much appreciate the testimony that you've given here.
 Page 195       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I do want to acknowledge that the $22 million that was appropriated for our garage was done under the chairmanship of Mr. Lewis——

    Mr. ROBINS. Thank you.

    Mr. STOKES [continuing]. For which we're very appreciative. I didn't know—what are you requesting here at this time?

    Mr. ROBINS. It was $28.3 million.

    Mr. STOKES. Okay, good. Well, again we thank you for your testimony. It's been very helpful.

    Mr. ROBINS. It's our loss, but the community's gain to have you back. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Robins.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much.

    Mr. ROBINS. I thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate your being with us.

 Page 196       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let me call upon Mr. Ronnie Lancaster, Morehouse School of Medicine, The Association of Minority Health Professions Schools.

    Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. [presiding]. Mr. Lancaster, have you received a copy of your prior testimony? I move that a copy of your prior testimony will be put into your record and you may summarize.

    Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Welcome.

 Page 197       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. I am Ronny Lancaster, Senior Vice President for Management and Policy at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta. However, today I appear before you as President of the Association of Minority Health Professions Schools. This is an association, which collectively, has trained over half of the Nation's black physicians and dentists. Over 60 percent of the Nation's pharmacists and black PhDs in science and 75 percent of the black veterinarians in this country. We are an association comprised of 12 member schools located throughout the country.

    Our association has two goals. First, to improve the health of all Americans—including African-Americans and other minorities—as well as poor citizens living in other underserved communities all across the United States. Our second goal is to improve the representation of African-Americans and other minorities and to help professions.

    I am here today to support and to request level funding for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry—or ATSDR. As you do know, ATSDR is the agency which, among other things, is concerned with the relationship between human illness and exposure to hazardous substances.

    My supplement consists of only three points—and so, I believe I may not use all of my time. However, before mentioning these three points—very quickly—I would request that the record reflect our sincere appreciation to this subcommittee for its outstanding work and particularly that of Congressman Stokes for his outstanding leadership in helping the safeguard the help of all Americans, especially that of our most at-risk citizens or foreign minority citizens.
 Page 198       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Consider that done. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LANCASTER. While we are saddened to learn of Mr. Stokes impending retirement, we are very appreciative for his 30 years of service to this Congress and to the Nation. In our view, it has been exactly that. Service which has been his hallmark, not only to the very fortunate residents of Cleveland, Ohio and the residents of the State, but to all Americans. I would only add, Mr. Chairman, that it has been a personal privilege to be able to sit across from Mr. Stokes during this hearing in this his last year of service to the Congress and to this committee.

    Mr. Chairman, now as promised—three very brief points. First, the ATSDR, in our view, is important. It is performing very important work in the field of environmental and technological studies. This work has a very important impact on public health. The Administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 1999 of $64 million—which is a reduction of $10 million below its current funding—would in our view severely hinder that agency's ability to carryout its important activities. We, therefore, recommend current funding at $74 million to allow that agency to continue its important work.

    Second, ATSDR has a cooperative agreement with our association. This agreement, which I will add, has served as a national model between Federal agencies and academic institutions, allows our member institutions to conduct a search which examines the consequences of exposure of hazardous materials to at-risk populations in medically underserved communities. We request continuation of the $4 million which allows us to conduct this work—which could be accommodated within level funding. I would add that this is the report which I will be delighted to leave with the Subcommittee which details, Mr. Chairman, the work of our member schools with this agency. While we're delighted—I'm sorry that Mr. Lewis had to leave—because I wanted to point out——
 Page 199       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. He'll be sure to get a copy of this report and if there's not objection—we'll have a copy of this in the record, as well.

    Mr. LANCASTER. Thank you. I was looking forward to pointing out that one of member schools—an outstanding school—the Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science—in Los Angeles. We're not fortunate enough to have one in New Jersey or in Ohio—but there are 11 other institutions located across the country.

    Mr. Chairman, my third and final point is this. The work being conducted under the cooperative agreement has important implications for at-risk populations. For example, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicates that poor children who are affected by lead poisoning are up to eight times a greater risk than non-poor children; or that one in five African-American children living in housing which was constructed before 1946, is affected by lead poisoning. The work that we're doing at our institution helps to examine the way in which lead is transmitted in utero from mother to infant. So the work that these schools are doing collectively, help to identify and helps to determine how illnesses can be prevented and treated. Illnesses resulting from exposure to toxic substances.

    So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd only like to express my appreciation and the appreciation of our member schools to the subcommittee for your outstanding work. To Mr. Stokes, particularly, and finally to simply request continuation of funding at the current level.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Lancaster for your recommendation and your perspective on a number of very important programs. To you and to your group, as well as certainly to our committee members, as well.
 Page 200       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want the record to show that I've had the privilege of working for a number of years with this organization, AMPS, on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee under the leadership of Dr. Louis Sullivan with whom Mr. Lancaster works at Morehouse College—Morehouse School of Medicine.

    Dr. Sullivan, of course, was the former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Due to this organization, we have a number of programs that were established at the institutions that he makes reference to—a significant number of programs that were introduced through that particular Subcommittee. But I'd like the record to show something—Mr. Lancaster in trying to come in up under his five minutes—was very considerate of the Subcommittee's time. I think it's important for us to have this in the record.

    AMPS is an organization which represents 12 historically black health professions schools in the country. Combined, these institutions have graduated 60 percent of the Nation's African-American pharmacists; 50 percent of the African-American physicians and dentists; 75 percent of the African-American veterinarians. Moreover, recently according to the Department of Education—of the 4,645 PhDs awarded in the biological life sciences in 1984–1985 school year—only 87 PhDs were granted to African-Americans. In the health professions, related scientists among the total 2,069 degrees conferred only 90 were awarded to African-American. But the majority of these degrees are granted by historically black colleges and universities. In 1989, of the 23 percent of the doctoral degrees awarded to African-Americans were by Meharry Medical College.
 Page 201       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Since 1975, over 10 percent of all doctorates and biomedical sciences, awarded the African-Americans, have been awarded by Meharry School of Graduate Studies. In 1995, Meharry Medical College graduated six PhDs in pharmacology and one PhD in medicinal chemistry. These numbers may seem small, but they are a significant representation of the contributions made by these 12 organizations. To the education of African-Americans of the graduate level of biomedical sciences. I just thought, Mr. Chairman, that ought to be a part of the record here so that we can understand the importance of this particular organization that Mr. Lancaster is the president of. I thank you again for your testimony.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr. Stokes. Returning to Mr. Lancaster.

    Mr. LANCASTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thanks to Mr. Stokes for pointing that out. Less than 2 percent of the Nation's PhDs are black and less than 3 percent of the Nation's physicians are black. So you can see, as a result, we've got a lot of work to do and thanks to the efforts of these gentlemen—we're on our way in helping our communities.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

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

 Page 202       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.





    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Committee is pleased to welcome one of our colleagues, Congresswoman Thurman, who is here to introduce our next witness, the Mayor of the City of Gainesville, Florida—The Honorable Bruce Delaney. Congresswoman, welcome. Thank you very much for being here on behalf of Chairman Lewis who had to step out.

    Mrs. THURMAN. I understand.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. From all Committee members, we're thrilled to have you.

    Mrs. THURMAN. Thanks. I'm certainly glad to be here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stokes, thank you for participating in these—we're also glad to see you here.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, it's good to see you.

 Page 203       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mrs. THURMAN. Actually, I told the Mayor that this is the third time we've been able to be before you all for this particular project, so that the third time ought to be a charm. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. Absolutely.

    Mrs. THURMAN. We even brought pictures this time because first of all, we wanted to thank the Committee for some of the other things that we've been able to do in Gainesville under the leadership of the Mayor and his commission. At the end, there's the Martin Luther King Center, it's a—multipurpose center, thank you. Cedar Grove which was actually some affordable housing issues that we've worked on and then—I can't even read it.

    Mr. DELANEY. Those are the two major projects that we're thankful for and then the other pictures all relate to the project that we're here discussing.

    Mrs. THURMAN. I guess there's two things that I would like to say. One is that this is such a huge issue, not only for this area but also for the State because of our aquifer. This is one way for us to get this cleaned up where we're not going to have anymore of the problems which those detect.

    The second thing is that it's also going to help us within this area that we've talked about that you've helped us so much with already. This is kind of what we think is the linchpin for economic development in that area. I know that we're all very concerned about that and what's going on in this country; and rebuilding and revitalizing areas that have come somewhat under depressed. So we've done some great things already. As I've said, this time is the third time is the charm, and with that certainly I will give over to the expert of the mayor of the city of Gainesville. We very pleased to have him with us today.
 Page 204       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Welcome, Mayor.

    Mr. DELANEY. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. What we're here seeking funds for is what we consider to be an important initiative—the Sweetwater Branch Stormwater Project. The 1,700 acres drained by Sweetwater Creek is that thin blue line is really the industrial and commercial heart of old Gainesville. It was created before there was any kind of stormwater retention or anyone ever gave any thought to that. The branch which is just a thin blue line leaves—please follow the arrows down to where it says Payne's Prairie. It's actually into Payne's Prairie, which is a 20,000-acre State preserve. It's home to a lot of endangered and threatened species. It's really a place that it's like the Okeefenokee; it's like the everglades. It's an absolutely wonderful place and it's become a key for eco-tourism in north Florida. It has tremendous visitorship. But the nutrients that are carried out there by that Sweetwater Branch are actually changing the vegetation that's on Payne's Prairie and making it no longer hospitable for many of the species that rely on it. You'd have to know what it looked like before to appreciate it.

    But generally what the Prairie should look like is just grass as far as the eye can see. That lower right-hand picture shows all kinds of woody vegetation springing up. That's one problem. Kind of separate from that on Payne's Prairie is an Alachua Sink—it's a natural sink hole. It's about two and one-half miles from where the creek enters Payne's Prairie just off this map. Our creeks in Gainesville don't go to rivers and then to the oceans, they go underground and become tomorrow's drinking water. That's what's happening—it's carrying all this gook off the streets, fertilizer off people's yards and it's only in a distance of three miles going into what amounts to our reservoir. So with these problems in mind, the City and actual county and the Water Management District in Florida and Department of Environmental Protection formed a partnership for solutions.
 Page 205       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The first step was to do a study, naturally, which was needed. That should be completed by next year. With this partnership is now seeking in its ecosystem management solutions to the problem. The project devised by these groups would reduce or eliminate the sediment, the nutrients and the other pollutants being discharged through the branch and into the sink hole. The project consists of three components. One is the purchase of needed sites—the two sites of that gaudy, sort of purple color that says Sweetwater Limited. The other side is up higher—it's yellow. One of the sites is a brown field. We've already received a $100,000 EPA grant for the assessment of that site which is an ongoing project.

    The second thing these sites would do—what the money would do—would be for the construction of sediment and debris removal systems and the construction of nutrient removal systems which would probably be vegetation-based. The benefits of this requested appropriation would be environmental which I've summarized and social which are just as critical to our healthy growth and development in the City of Gainesville. What's happened in Gainesville—off to the left—you can't see it, is Interstate 75. It was completed in the 1960's at which point Gainesville got up and headed West. Here's what happened. Leaving the eye and virtually the entire African-American community and lower-income whites on the Eastern side of town. The resultant problems—you're all familiar with them, even more familiar with them than I am, I'm sure. The problems of crime, poverty and emptiness of stores at home—what have you—as the city has fled West.

    We've tried to attack that. In fact, I feel at times like I'm the Mayor of East Gainesville, rather than the Mayor of Gainesville. Because West Gainesville takes care of itself—pride and investment goes there—it's not a problem. The problem is in East Gainesville. We believe that these basins will help East Gainesville in three ways. They'll help us to continue the redevelopment of the old downtown by permitting more intense use to each building site. They'll help us with the creation of jobs.
 Page 206       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I might add that we've used the section 108 loans—the HUD section 108 loans—to attract major developers to the downtown. We have one project underway and 200 considerations. They haven't used section 108 loans, but that's been an important part of the conversation that got them there, and hopefully, we'll be able to use one of those yet.

    The creation of jobs, redeveloped; the creation of a park at each stormwater site—there's been similar parks created in Tallahassee; there's been similar parks created in Orlando; and they've had the impact of bringing back the neighborhoods around them. So if you can visualize particularly that yellow site which is—the purple site doesn't have much in the way of people living around it, but the yellow site has severely impacted neighborhoods around it that would benefit from the creation of that park. So I'm here to respectfully request an appropriation of $2 million as an EPA grant to help us with the resurgence of East Gainesville. I appreciate your time and interest.

    I might say, Mr Frelinghuysen, that I grew up in your district——

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My loss. [Laughter.]

    Mrs. THURMAN. Obviously, yes. [Laughter.]

    Mr. DELANEY. Your father was the first person I ever voted for, I think, in 1968. [Laughter.]

    I just want to say I heard that.
 Page 207       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Gainesville is about to experience the same kind of growth that Morris County did in the 1950's and 1960's. Right now, it's pretty much in urban form and rural on the outside just like Morristown was. The same thing is about to happen. We're about that pretty intensive growth and we need to—if we can't control the growth better—at least control the impact of it. We're restoring clean water—7 million gallons per day—that's 7 billion gallons in three years. We could be storing clean water, instead of storing polluted water. So any help you can give us, we'd appreciate it.

    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Mayor Delaney, we sure appreciate your being here. Thank you, Ms. Thurman.

    Mrs. THURMAN. I appreciate it.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mayor Delaney, if you come up to Morristown, the mayor of Morristown, is Jay Delaney. [Laughter.]

    Mr. STOKES. I just want to let you know, Mr. Mayor, that no mayor in America has a more fierce advocate than you have in Karen Thurman. [Laughter.]

    She is relentless on behalf of her congressional district.

    Mr. DELANEY. Well, I appreciate that.

    Mr. STOKES. It's to the point where every time I see her, she mentions water. Keeps me conscious at all times on water projects in that State.
 Page 208       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I'll never forget last year Mr. Stokes came up with an amendment on the floor and said, ''Jerry, you know we've got to do something here. Karen Thurman is all over me.'' [Laughter.]

    Mr. DELANEY. I hope you take his advice.

    Mrs. THURMAN. Thank you. I want you all to know that I only bring those projects that get support from our State, our counties and our cities so that we're not sharing the whole burden—this is really a joint effort.

    Mr. STOKES. We appreciate that.

    Mrs. THURMAN. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.



 Page 209       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. From the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Howard Geller, the Executive Director. Welcome.

    Mr. GELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear. I'm the Executive Director, as you indicated, of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit research analysis and advocacy organization.

    We are here today to support the funding increase for EPA's global Climate Change Technology Initiative. Particularly the energy-efficiency and pollution prevention programs done by EPA's Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Division. We recommend that the Congress fund as much of the Administration's $205 million request in this area in fiscal year 1999, as is possible. There are three or four key reasons we seek for this funding increase.

    First, these programs are really a success. EPA has shown great creativity in developing cost-effective programs that are having a substantial impact. The Green Lights program has convinced thousands of businesses to implement cost-effective energy-saving lighting upgrades in their facilities. Ten percent of the commercial building space in the country has now signed up for this program. Over 500 manufacturers are participating in the Energy Star Labeling program which is educating consumers about energy-saving appliances, air conditioning equipment, heating systems and so forth. These are just a few examples of the impact that this program is having in the marketplace. These programs are good for our Nation's economy. EPA estimates that as of last year, these programs were saving consumers more than $1 billion on their energy bills. For every dollar by EPA, consider a saving over $60. This ratio is growing year-by-year as the programs mature and its implementation expands.
 Page 210       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thirdly, of course, these programs are good for the environment. Energy efficient and pollution prevention are a major component of our Nation's efforts to reduce the emissions that are contributing to global warming and climate change. EPA estimate programs cut emissions by 11 million metric tons of carbon this past year which is equivalent to taking about eight million cars off the road in terms of the avoided emissions.

    In addition the programs are reducing the pollutants that cause acid rain, urban smog and lots of other environmental problems. Most important, they're doing this as an economic benefit for the country, not an economic cost as is typically associated with a smoke-stack, tailpipe-type emissions controls. Of course, the program also has very broad support. The Subcommittee, I believe, has received letters from hundreds of companies in the past. Supporting these programs, you have major companies like Mobil, GM, electric utilities, like Southern California Edison and American Electric Power in Ohio—that are supporting, participating and embracing these programs, even though they do have some problems with the climate treaty negotiated as assembled in Kyoto.

    In short, these programs make good business sense. If they're so effective, I think it's reasonable to ask why is more funding needed. They are successful, but much greater energy, economic and environmental benefits can be achieved if the programs were expanded. So far only 10 percent of the commercial cost basis are participating in Green Light. More work is needed to convince other companies to participate in and provide the services that EPA is providing—information training, technical assistance for participants. There's also additional products that could be covered in programs like the Energy Star Labeling program.

 Page 211       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    So to summarize, the climate change and pollution prevention programs provide many important benefits to the Nation. By helping to eliminate energy wastes in a highly cost-effective manner, the programs are a sensible response to the threat of global climate change. They are justified even if climate change turns out not to be a major concern. I hope members of the Congress will support greater funding for these programs, independent of opinions concerning the Kyoto climate treaty. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Geller. Appreciate your being here. Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony.

    Mr. GELLER. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




 Page 212       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. STOKES. Thank you, appreciate it. Mr. William Becker is our next witness, of STAPPA/ALAPCO.

    Mr. BECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Bill Becker. I'm the Executive Director of two national associations representing the 54 States and territories and 150 major metropolitan areas having air pollution control programs throughout the country. We appreciate this opportunity to testify on EPA's budget request for fiscal year 1999 and specifically on the two sections of the Clean Air Act that relate to the funding of air pollution programs in the State and local level—sections 103 and 105.

    We believe the President's budget request is grossly inadequate to fund State and local activities in two principal areas. One with regard to the PM fine or PM 2.5 monitoring network and the other with regard to the rest of the implementation activities under the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, we are requesting that an increase of $121 million be made available to fund in two parts; $23 million for the monitoring network; and $98 million for the implementation of the rest of the Clean Air program.

    I'd like to spend the next three minutes to tell you why. With respect to the particulate matter, EPA has estimated that it's going to cost about $98.3 million to deploy a national particulate matter PM 2.5 program—monitoring program throughout the entire country. This program would fund the purchase of equipment, as well as the analysis of the data and the operation and maintenance of the facilities. On numerous occasions, EPA has promised that they will be funding this fully and with new money. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. Instead of providing $9.3 million to fund the $2.5 monitoring network, EPA has in fact only funded $75.3 million in new money to date—a shortfall of about $23 million what EPA promised to provide.
 Page 213       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We're pleased that the Senate, who invented the ISTEA, has recognized this problem and we're hopeful that the House during conference committee on ISTEA, will also recognize the problem. We're more hopeful that the Appropriations Committee will appropriate those funds. We urge you to increase the section 103 funding for those funds that the monitoring network which is so sorely needed by the $23 million. While monitoring is very important, State and local agencies, as you know, ranging from New Jersey DEP to South Coast Air Quality Management District to the heart of EPA, have numerous other activities to carry out. Small control measures, air toxic implementation activities, enforcement of air quality rules and laws and assistance of small businesses as a few examples.

    Yet while the need for Federal funding is increasing, the funding for operating programs since the year 1995 has decreased by $40 million or 23 percent during this time of increasing responsibilities. These cuts have seriously affected the ability of State and local air pollution agencies around the country not only new emerging activities, but also to maintain the successes that many existing agencies, including today's New York Times article about the South Coast Air Quality Management District have acknowledged. It is not only State and local agencies who recognize the need for additional funding. EPA has as well.

    Last year, in cooperation with our associations, EPA published a study that estimated the additional costs that were needed to fund State and local air pollution programs, particularly the Federal portion of those costs. And the study, which we shared with the subcommittee, concluded that to operate a good, not perfect, program, we would need an increase in Federal funding of $98.3 million over last year's levels. This would not include the monitoring network.
 Page 214       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    These estimates included savings from eliminating completing programs and curtailing lower priority initiatives that simply weren't necessary any more. So, in spite of the significant shortfall identified by the meat survey, we are chagrined that EPA has not only not proposed budget increases in fiscal year 1999, it has actually called for decreases in funding and has proposed reprogramming funds away from these activities.

    So, in conclusion, we're here to ask for an increase of $121 million—$23 million for the monitor network, $98 million from the rest of the Clean Air Act. And we hope that you'll do whatever you possibly can to make certain that happens.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Becker. Mr. Stokes?

    Mr. STOKES. No; thank you Mr. Becker, very much.

    Mr. BECKER. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate your being here very much.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.
 Page 215       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  





    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness, Mr. Raymond Campion, of the Mickey Leland National Urban Toxics Center. I don't see him in the audience. Is there somebody?

    Mr. HOLIAMAN. Yes, I'm Andrij Holiaman. I'm representing him——

    Mr. LEWIS. All right.

    Mr. HOLIAMAN [continuing]. And the center today. He had a tragic loss——

    Mr. LEWIS. I understand he did, yes.

    Mr. HOLIAMAN. I appreciate your consideration of the change of speakers.

 Page 216       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Would you give me your name for the record?

    Mr. HOLIAMAN. Andrij Holiaman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Holiaman?

    Mr. HOLIAMAN. Right.

    Mr. LEWIS. Right. Thank you.

    Mr. HOLIAMAN. I appreciate the opportunity to report to the Subcommittee on the progress of the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center. I want to introduce one of our members of our board, Dr. Marcus Key, professor emeritus at the University of Texas, Houston, Health Science Center, who was the original head of NIOSH, I believe. Our board is now complete, with the recent nomination of Dr. Felton Lewis, from the Urban House Corporation, who was recently appointed by President Clinton. Our board represents a very good partnership, and what we have is a good example of the type of partnerships that exists at the Mickey Leland Center.

    The Subcommittee has been most helpful to the Center in the past. We now have a very active research program with two major initiatives that have been funded to address key risk assessment questions that we face by the EPA and by Congress in the next few years. These are going to be conducted at Columbia and at the Environmental Occupational Health Sciences Institute, in New Jersey. They have been very well received by the scientific community and by the EPA, and they will measure the relationship between personal exposures and ambient air concentrations of air toxics.
 Page 217       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We've also established partnerships for the conduct of these studies with the Health Effects Institute, the State of California, and are working to a partnership with the State of Texas at this time. This leveraging of partnerships with government agencies, States, industry, and public interest groups has greatly assisted the Leland Center's research program.

    In addition, we are working with the CDC National Center for Health Statistics in the NHANES program that begins this year. The Leland Center is the only non-governmental agency working with the NHANES program, and we are carrying out studies on personal exposures of human subjects to air toxics as part of this national survey on people's health and nutrition.

    New research programs will also begin this year. The first will develop an approved methodology for assessing personal exposure to fine particulates and the metals of these particulates. This work represents an extension of the ongoing effort that we currently have to make a relationship between personal exposures and anti-concentrations of air toxics. The second program will start a study on the human health effects and need being caused by these metals on these particulates. And as you recall from the recent National Research Council report, these are two of the primary areas that have been identified as gaps in knowledge that need to be filled in the National Research Council report. And we clearly have established in this area the Leland Center in conducting this work.

    We feel that our research is clearly on target with the national needs and that these data will be available for the next round of standard setting by the EPA. In addition, we also are starting a small grants program that provides funds for specific community-related projects focused on health effects of urban air in communities and sub-populations.
 Page 218       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Our request for fiscal year 1999 is $2.6 million, which will allow us to continue our ongoing studies and allow us to move forward with these additional research programs on fine particulate exposure, metals effects, and the small grants programs as detailed in our prepared testimony.

    In summary, we feel strongly that this private-public partnership in environmental health research, as envisioned by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, has come into fruition. Again, we thank the subcommittee for their support and their patience of our program. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. We very much appreciate your appearing today, and, for the record, I think it needs to be said that Raymond Campion, who was going to be with us, who is President of the Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center, had a tragic tragedy in his family last week. His wife passed away, and we appreciate the both of you being here. I don't have additional questions.

    Mr. Stokes.

    Mr. STOKES. No, I just would join with you in thanking the gentlemen for their appearance here this afternoon. Thank you very much.

    Mr. HOLIAMAN. Thank you very much.

    Mr. KEY. Thank you.
 Page 219       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Albert Gray, Dr. Gray, Water Environment Federation.

    Mr. GRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. The Federation has testified before before this subcommittee, and we appreciate the opportunity to do so again.

    Mr. LEWIS. We'll put your entire statement in the record, as you know——

    Mr. GRAY. I understand.
 Page 220       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'm the Deputy Executive Director of the Water Environment Federation, which is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and I'm here today on behalf of this Federation, which is an organization of some 40,000 plus engineers, scientists, and practicing professionals who work in the water quality industry. The Federation is urging you to support an adequate level of funding for the National Water Quality programs that are administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in their fiscal year 1999 budget request.

    The three areas that we're specifically highlighting today in this summary of the testimony that we think are very important from a funding standpoint are watershed management, the financing of infrastructure through the State Development Loan Fund, and the area of research.

    The Federation believes that the EPA activities that support watershed management and the reduction of non-point source pollution should be made a priority. We have seen substantial improvement in the quality of our Nation's water since the Clean Water Act passage in 1972 established technology-based treatment primarily for point sources, but to achieve the further progress that's needed to clean up what's been estimated to be the remaining 60 some odd percent of pollution loads on our streams and bodies of water, we really need to adopt the watershed approach. We need to address sources of pollution which include runoff from farm fields, city streets, atmospheric deposition among others. The current approach really provides no means to effectively set priorities for those types of pollution. However, the watershed approach will allow for a comprehensive and integrated approach to protecting all water resources, including uplands, drainage basins, wetlands, as well as surface and ground waters.

 Page 221       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We feel that Congress should support those activities which provide flexibility and encourage management of water quality on a watershed basis, including specifically funding for President Clinton's Clean Water Action Plan. We strongly support the additional $145 million requested in EPA fiscal year 1999 budget allocated to this implementation of this Clean Water Action Plan and water restoration initiative.

    One area where the Federation is currently working to implement watershed management is through biosolids recycling. Land application of biosolids, which is a by-product of waste water treatment, will effectively recycle this nutrient-rich organic product, and it's comparable in nutrient value to commercial fertilizer. To promote this practice, the Federation, in cooperation with the Associate of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and the EPA, recently a few months ago, formed the National Biosolids Partnership. And we're urging Congress to support this partnership as it promotes environmentally sound alternatives for biosolids management.

    One other key budget item that will support watershed management, including non-point source pollution program funding and funding for water quality research, and capitalization of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the SRF.

    We are supporting funding for addressing non-point sources of pollution. The fiscal year 1999 EPA budget specifically requests $200 million in assistance to States to address this problem through their non-point source pollution management programs. Investments in best management practices and other measures geared toward meeting local water quality needs could result in substantial reductions in overall pollutant loadings from agriculture, mining, construction, street, and rooftop runoff.

 Page 222       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    On the topic of research, WEF is supporting an increase in EPA's water quality research budget. We feel more research is needed to ensure regulatory and management decisions are technically credible, cost-effective, and, as was heard from others testifying, are based on sound science. Watershed management will only be successful if we have a more thorough understanding of the ambient water quality conditions and the impact on those waters of both point and non-point sources of pollution. We call your attention to the fact that since 1980, EPA's water quality research budget has steadily decreased while Clean Water Act requirements, including advanced waste water treatment, biosolids management, combined sewer overflow storm water control, removal of toxic constituents among others, have continued to require additional research to meet the challenges that is presented by those environmental stresses. Research and technology development are vital to improving our understanding and base of knowledge regarding water pollution problems and to developing solutions which will minimize, eliminate, or prevent adverse environmental and human health impacts.

    We would like to ask the Subcommittee to continue its support of cooperative research efforts and our foundation, the Water Environment Research Foundation. This represents an ongoing collaborative effort between the Federal Government, cities, and preeminent water quality specialists to further our understanding of water quality problems and solutions. WEF urges the subcommittee to support WERF and its water quality research goals.

    Finally, on the subject of financing infrastructure, which we think is becoming increasingly critical, the Water Environment Federation supports an appropriation of at least $2 billion for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund capitalization program for fiscal year 1999. Our review of data based on an annualized basis indicates the annual needs for wastewater infrastructure to be on the order of $16 billion. Based on 1990 Bureau of Census data, we estimate the current level of aggregate spending at all levels of government for wastewater capital needs is $9.7 billion. So we're seeing a gap of $6.3 billion every year between what is needed to maintain the level of waste water treatment and waste water infrastructure services and the actual expenditures. This gap is perhaps the single most significant figure in our current debate about clean water needs.
 Page 223       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The Federation, in partnership again with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and others, has undertaken a study to better quantify the financial requirements of developing a sustainable infrastructure system related to waste water. As you know, the Clean Water Act needs surveys that have been done by EPA show the total capitalization requirement of about $137 billion, but our estimates would indicate that that number is low, and doesn't account for some of the needs such as combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, storm water, and some of these types of water quality management challenges.

    In addition to capital needs, operation and maintenance costs are also roughly equivalent in magnitude to the capital costs I've just reviewed.

    Given these large funding needs, the Clinton Administration has requested only $1.075 billion for meeting wastewater treatment facility needs through the State Revolving Fund in Fiscal Year 1998. We believe that $2 billion is the minimum amount that should be appropriated. Continued Federal assistance for municipal waste water treatment facility construction is crucial if we are to fulfill this basic public health need.

    The Federation urges Congress to move expeditiously to approve funding for these important water quality programs. This concludes our statement, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions asked.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Gray. As you know, it's been a long day, and we have two more witnesses; and we're about an hour behind. Mr. Frelinghuysen.
 Page 224       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. GRAY. Thank you very much for your time.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have six more witnesses.

    Mr. LEWIS. I can't stay for six more witnesses. I've got to be out of here.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. David Nemtzow.

 Page 225       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    David Nemtzow.

    Mr. NEMTZOW. Yes, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. I hope I pronounced that somewhat close, but——

    Mr. NEMTZOW. You got it right.

    Mr. LEWIS. I do have to go.

    Mr. NEMTZOW. I see, and I will be brief with my time and yours. You'll be here all day, and I thank you for allowing me to testify.

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me mention one thing: there is a meeting that I really do have to go to, and Mr. Frelinghuysen has agreed to chair the rest of the meeting. Before I leave, I just want to mention for those who've been through this long day with us that I especially want to recognize our recorder. He is highly professional and hasn't bothered us at all outside of saying, ''Why don't you give me the right name?'' And we appreciate your help today.

    Please go right ahead.

    Mr. NEMTZOW. Thank you.

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Alliance to Save Energy was founded by Charles Percy two years ago and honored by your friend, Chuck Embrecht, at our annual dinner. I just wanted to let you know that this year we are honoring your colleague, David Skaggs, at our annual dinner and we're having our newest board member join us. That's William Kies, Governor Wilson's—I think he is chairman of the CEC, so we maintain our close ties to your State which has always been the leader in energy efficiency, as you know so well.
 Page 226       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that.

    Mr. NEMTZOW. We were founded in 1977 by Charles Percy. We are chaired today by Senator Jeff Bingaman and co-chaired by Senator Jeffords and your colleagues John Porter and Ed Markey. And we have 75 businesses who join us, and we have 21 years of energy efficiency expertise. We follow the EPA programs quite closely and are pleased to share our views. And thank you again for the opportunity.

    I know it's just a comment, but I think Mr. Geller did a very nice job of explaining the Energy Star program and the benefits. You know them well. You've been through this.

    Mr. LEWIS. Right.

    Mr. NEMTZOW. I took a few notes, and perhaps I can sort of deviate from the script and sort of cut to the chase if it pleases the Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate it. Thank you.

    Mr. NEMTZOW. This is a very successful program. I don't think you can do much better in the programs that are under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. I think it deserves the substantial and significant increase that the administration has requested. The numbers are very powerful, and these programs work, from the Green Lights program that helps companies like Mobil understand energy savings opportunities to companies like IBM or Compaq computers who produce these products that save energy and earn the energy start label.
 Page 227       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And so for companies that are very smart—Mobil employs as many engineers as any company in America. They're a very good company, but with EPA's help, they found $77 million in energy savings. This ad ran in The New York Times, and The Post, and other places where Mobil acknowledges that even a company as smart as they are still needs the help of agencies like EPA to identify these energy-saving and, therefore, pollution-avoiding opportunities. So if Mobil needs the help, you can imagine what it's like for the small companies in your district or in Morris County who will not be able to find these opportunities without EPA's help.

    And that is why, as you heard, these programs have led to $1 billion in savings, and that's very significant. The reason for the big increase is threefold, Mr. Chairman.

    Number one, the number of participants is steadily increasing, and that means more and more companies and other players—universities and hospitals—need EPA's help.

    Number two, as they grow, the opportunities to work to help them share energy savings grows. Only one out of five Fortune 500 companies are even participating, and smaller companies have a bigger challenge.

    Number three, most importantly, is that almost each month EPA announces a new partnership with a private industry. Perhaps you heard when they announced Energy Star TV's and VCR's recently. When TV's and VCR's are left off, they still use energy to run the timer and the remote control and by going to the Energy Star model, they can save consumers $500 million a year and cut pollution.
 Page 228       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, there you have it. You have a very successful program supported by corporate America. We participated in a new poll that shows 61 percent of Americans, a majority, support energy efficiency and renewable energy over any other energy source.

    But I think what's most important for you to consider as you consider the budget the challenges before this agency are fewfold. One is the issue of Kyoto and carbon dioxide. Mobil doesn't support the Kyoto treaty; yet, they acknowledge that this helps them create a hedge against carbon dioxide, and that's something you must consider. Regardless of what you think on Kyoto, is carbon dioxide a big enough risk that you want to have some insurance? Energy efficiency is great insurance on CO2. Never mind the other pollutants.

    Number two, this program has great support. Perhaps you will recall a few years ago when your counterpart in the Senate proposed cutting back this program dramatically. Senator Jeffords and Senator Bingaman went to the floor, and were very successful in overturning that. It resulted in getting an increase, and you have supported an increase in the program in the past; and we thank you.

    This program is very popular in corporate America, with the public, and I think with your colleagues. And I think with good reason.

    Finally, I know what you're thinking. You have a big budget. You've heard all day about programs that are priorities that produce value. I don't doubt that. But I have a challenge to you: this program gets $40 million a year. It produces a billion dollars in savings. That's a 25 to 1 ratio. Any other program you have, Mr. Chairman, that can deliver 25 to 1, I think you should give an increase. I know this program can meet that standard, and I hope you will agree that its a priority. It lowers all the pollutants that we care about—NOX, SO2, carbon dioxide, particulates—the range because they're all produced from energy waste.
 Page 229       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And number three, it's voluntary. It has the strong support of businesses. It's exactly the way that I know you want this government to operate. The Alliance to Save Energy certainly does—non-regulatory program.

    I think it's a winner. You're still saying, ''Where am I going to find the money?'' One thing you might want to think about is that the Federal government is the biggest energy user in the country. The Feds spend $8 billion a year on energy, of which over $1 billion is wasted, according to our estimates. This isn't just aircraft carriers. This is military housing and those VA hospitals and the public housing that's under your subcommittee's jurisdiction. We'd be happy to work with you to identify opportunities to cut the utility bills for the VA, for HUD, for NASA and all your agencies. You get those savings, and you can invest them right into programs like this. You get double duty. You're saving the taxpayers money on energy waste. Then you can support priority programs to there's less than others you've heard today. We'd be happy to work with you and your extremely professional staff on that if you're interested.

    Thank you again for your time. I know how busy you are, and I wish you luck with this important subcommittee. And I hope that the Energy Star program will become one of your priorities.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your testimony. I want to say to those who are remaining that we are about to swear in a new Member of Congress, Mary Bono, from California. I was supposed to be at a reception for her about an hour ago, so I'm going to have to go to that. Mr. Frelinghuysen has agreed to help us work through the balance of our list, but please don't note my absence for these last few moments as not an interest in the program to represent. Thank you for being here.
 Page 230       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. NEMTZOW. We're convinced, sir, you still have the biggest delegation. Don't you agree? [Laughter.]

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [presiding] Thank you again for your testimony.

    [The information follows:]
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Chair is pleased to recognize David Dermer, City Commissioner, City of Miami, Florida.

    Commissioner, welcome. Thank you for your patience.

    Mr. DERMER. Thank you for having me.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A copy of your full statement will be put in the record. And our colleague, Ms. Meek, wanted to be here to endorse your good work. She's a remarkable member of this committee, and we're always excited to have her participation. In her absence, we say thank you for being here.
 Page 231       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. DERMER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I also would like to introduce Mr. Bruce Henderson, who is our environmental specialist for the City of Miami Beach.

    Congressman Clay Shaw wanted to be here as well. However, he had to chair a 3:00 p.m. meeting and could not attend. Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen also had a prior engagement. But both of them would have liked to have been here in support of two issues that I come before you today on.

    The first is the Miami Beach Waterway Revitalization Project, and the second one is the Water Sewer Restoration Initiative.

    The city of Miami Beach exists as a cluster of barrier islands, with the Atlantic Ocean on one side and the Biscayne Bay marine estuary on the other. The 6-mile long chain of islands is subdivided by 39 miles of canals and waterways. Just after the turn of the century, these natural waterways were ''improved'' by dredging and the construction of seawalls to improve navigation and to stabilize the shorelines.

    Over the years, these once pristine waterways have fallen into decline. The waterway improvements so altered the shoreline ecosystem that the mangroves and other native plants have died out or been overgrown by nuisance species. The steel and concrete seawalls have crumbled and have collapsed.

    The loss of native plant communities and the failure of seawalls have resulted in substantial erosion of the shorelines. The shoreline erosion has undercut roadways and public and private structures. The erosion also transported tens of thousands of tons of sand and topsoil into the waterways.
 Page 232       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Basically, Mr. Chairman, what we've had is because this is eroded away, a lot of our canals are being severely polluted because of that, and that's why it is an EPA issue, an environmental issue. Plus it is a health safety issue, because with the erosion of the seawalls, the public roadworks continue to erode as well.

    Silt and sediment from the eroding shorelines have smothered benthic communities and clouded the water. In addition, the eroded shorelines allow rain water runoff to wash nutrients, agricultural chemicals and other pollutants into the waterways.

    These water quality and ecosystem impacts have driven away or killed off the manatees, porpoises, bait fish, and game fish populations which used to be in abundance. The loss of the native wetland plant communities from along the shorelines has also substantially reduced the available habitat for many key bird, reptile and animal species, including many migratory birds which utilize our area as winter nesting grounds.

    Through the Miami Beach Waterway Revitalization Project, the City of Miami Beach proposes to address the shoreline erosion problem in a truly innovative and environmentally beneficial manner.

    The city plans to replace the crumbling concrete and steel seawalls with an innovative ''living seawall.'' This would entail the demolition of the damaged seawalls and the construction of a new wall comprised of carefully intermeshed boulders of different sizes. The slope and elevation of the new boulder walls will be designed to closely mimic the natural tidal creek shorelines which pre-existed the seawalls. So, with this program what we're doing is—it's a natural seawall. It's going to be a lot less expensive and a lot more efficient in the long run, and will bring back the native plants.
 Page 233       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I know that the hour is late. What we're asking for $2.5 million to be able to get this done, and this is both an environmental and a health safety issue—to be able to protect the people of Miami Beach.

    The other issue that I'm here before on is the water system, which we already put out a bond issue—we did not wait on Federal funding—basically to do two things: to improve the waste water pump stations and also improvements to the gravity collection system to reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow into the waste water system. $105 million has been spent. We're asking just for 10 percent of some sort of Federal reimbursement, a 90-10 split, where locally we're picking up 90 percent. So those are the two issues that we come before humbly today.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Commissioner, thank you.

    Mr. DERMER. Before I leave, I just would be remiss if I didn't commend HUD and the committee, especially on their Community Impact Development Funding program.

    So I thank you very much on behalf of the people of Miami Beach.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you both.

    [The information follows:]
    Offset folios 988 to 992 Insert here
 Page 234       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is my pleasure to recognize Joseph Suflita from the University of Tulsa, a survivor of the hearing process here.

    Mr. SUFLITA Thank you for your patience.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just because you're a survivor doesn't mean you can go on at great length.

    Mr. SUFLITA. No, we're not. [Laughter.]

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. For the record, we would appreciate if you would be good enough to summarize your statement. Your statement in its entirety will be put in the record. Thank you for being here.

    Mr. SUFLITA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. On behalf of the Integrated Public Private Energy and Environmental Consortium, IPEC, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you for providing $1.5 million in funding for IPEC in the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations bill for the Environmental Protection Agency.
 Page 235       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Under your leadership and that of both houses of Congress, the final Appropriations bill included initial funding for this research consortium. Specifically, the funding provided for the development of cost-effective environmental technology, improved business practices, and technology transfer for the domestic energy industry. It wouldn't have been possible without the efforts of this subcommittee.

    With initial funding under the science and technology account of EPA, IPEC will implement a comprehensive mechanism, or Center, to advance the consortium's research expertise in environmental technology. The operating practices and linkages of the independent sector will ensure that real problems in the domestic petroleum industry are addressed with real, workable solutions. The consortium includes the Universities of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Oklahoma State University.

    We are pleased to report, as envisioned and originally proposed, that State-level matching funds have been pledged to support of IPEC, creating a true Federal-State partnership. In fiscal year 1998, IPEC secured a pledge of $375,000 from the Chancellor of Higher Education in the State.

    IPEC officers met with EPA on several occasions to ensure that we meet the Agency's requirements for funding a research center and for the successful funding of IPEC. And IPEC is proceeding in its solicitation and review process so that we'll be in a position to fund projects as soon as possible. And part and parcel of this, the Industrial Advisory Board of IPEC has been formed and met for the first time on January 20. This 20-member board is composed of environmental professionals and domestic petroleum—professionals from the domestic petroleum industry and is dominated by independent oil producers. We are pleased to report that this advisory board has recommended five projects at this point to go forward for funding, and we anticipate more in the coming months.
 Page 236       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    And this board, this Industrial Advisory Board, is our measure of relevancy of research within the consortium, is truly unique, and ensures that the consortium is meeting the needs of the domestic energy industry. In fact, IPEC has secured significant matching funds from industry or industry organizations. The first five projects total $492,000, and the investigators have secured another $502,000 for pursuit of research.

    As we have previously testified, the ability of small-and medium-size producers to compete in a global market is complicated by two factors: the cost of regulatory compliance and the declining cost of crude oil. With your help, IPEC is developing cost-effective solutions for environmental problems that represent challenge to the industry. However, the fiscal year 1998 appropriations is only a beginning. For example, our Industrial Advisory Board has identified 26 critical research needs. With the current funding, we can begin to address only a fraction of these. There is much work to be done and we are again requesting support of the subcommittee in the form appropriations for fiscal year 1999. Specifically, IPEC is seeking appropriations of $4 million for fiscal year 1999 and the succeeding fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002 through the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The Consortium will be responsible for at least a 50 percent match of Federal appropriations with private sector and State support over the 4-year period. The Consortium will be subject to annual review to ensure the effective production of data, regulatory assessments, and technology development meeting the stated goals of the Consortium.

    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your attention, and to also thank you for your prospective support.
 Page 237       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Suflita. Thank you for testifying.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. David Slade, representing the Association of National Estuary Programs. Gentlemen.

    Mr. SLADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Good afternoon.

    Mr. SLADE. Good afternoon. This is Bill Kerr from Florida on my left and we're here with the Association of National Estuary Programs. We are here so you could get an idea of the programs out there. We're both citizens. We're both supporters of the program. We're both private businessmen, and strongly support the National Estuary Program. I'd also like to personally thank you and your staff. They've been very helpful.
 Page 238       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A copy of your formal comments will be put in the record, and I guess your comments are going to be largely informal?

    Mr. SLADE. Yes. There's 28 national estuary programs, and this is the tenth year; this is a Clean Water Act Program, so it's like many of the Clean Water Act programs. It remains unauthorized since 1992. Mr. Saxton, from your State, has introduced a bill to reauthorize it, and we have 20 co-sponsors of that and would reauthorize this program at $30 million, which is our appropriations request. Twenty-eight NEPs. The program has been in the developmental stage for a decade for 10 years—11 since 1987. And at this moment, 17 of the 28, and next year 28 of the 28, are expected to be implemented. So that's roughly $1 million per NEP.

    We support it as citizens and as private businessmen because this is not an old school command and control regulatory program. This has really developed from the ground up, and I'll have Bill describe with you his experience down here with Indian River Lagoon.

    Mr. KERR. I'd like to make it short. I need to tell you the reason that I have donated over 6 years of my life to this program.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And your name for the record?

    Mr. KERR. William W. Kerr. I'm from Melbourne, Florida.

    When I was first involved with the Indian River Lagoon program, it was 6 years ago. There were 150 State and Federal agencies that had jurisdiction, each working in their own little area of activity. Five years later, we brought everybody to the table—all the environmental people, all the business owners, everybody to the same table. Everybody that was affected by the plan was at the table. They agreed to the plan. The plan is effective. The plan is in place, and it is now currently working effectively. Why do I know this? I spent like 15 or 20 years as an environmental consultant, getting people through the permitting process, both State and Federal, and it's usually an antagonistic position. In this particular program, everybody meets together, everybody comes up with the solutions, locally. And it's supported by Federal dollars and also supported by State and local agencies, and it is a very effective program.
 Page 239       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. SLADE. We're asking for $30 million, which is a slight increase from last year, and we have a special request within that, if we are fortunate enough to get an increase in this funding, we would like this funding to go to the programs. EPA has automatically been taking 25 percent out.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Committee will so note that.

    Mr. SLADE. They have—and we would like to keep that level there, and if there is an increase in appropriations out to the programs.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think philosophically that's where a lot of us come from. I won't speak for the Committee, but certainly I'm familiar with the work of a lot of the estuary groups. I wasn't aware that you all worked together, but I think that coordination is obviously important because that's why you're here.

    Mr. KERR. The younger programs had to do it in 3 years, so the older programs helped them. We feel the coordination is essential to our programs.

    Mr. SLADE. The Administration has made the Clean Water Action Plan proposal, and we, of course, support anything that's going to clean up the waters. I guess in response to that, all we have to say is that this program is up and running. It's out there. It's in the implementation stage, and for $30 million, it would be very beneficial.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, thank you for your testimony, and thank you for your own personal contributions of time and effort.
 Page 240       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. KERR. Thank you.

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

Tuesday, April 21, 1998.




    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Chair recognizes Dr. Jerome Siebert, Institute for Food Technologists.

    Dr. Siebert, welcome this afternoon. Sorry you're almost last on the batting order.

    Mr. SIEBERT. It's okay. It's still 2:00 p.m. in California.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, for some of us here, I'm not sure what it is.

 Page 241       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. SIEBERT. Understand yes.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. A copy of your full remarks will be in the record.

    Mr. SIEBERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. By way of background, I'll just summarize the statement. My name is Jerome Siebert. I'm an economist with the University of California. I also serve as a public member of the Ruling Marking Board and also on the Farm Services Agency as ex officio. I do a lot of work with the California commodity groups in terms of the application of farm technology.

    The purpose of me being here today is that I represent 11 scientific societies whose recommendations are attached to the testimony, and this coming together of 11 scientific societies is rather unprecedented, and it really is over a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency which would assert jurisdiction under FIFRA over all substances that plants produce to protect themselves against pests and diseases as well as the genetic materials necessary to produce these substances. Due time materials developed through more traditional plant breeding practices would be exempted from registration requirements, but plant materials developed through biotechnology generally would be subject to regulation.

    The causes of concern for these 11 societies are numerous. First of all, we're concerned that the development of new plant varieties through biotechnology would be greatly discouraged. Secondly, the registration requirements would create a major barrier to market entry for entrepreneurs, college laboratories, and small businesses that have been instrumental in the advances made in this field. And thirdly, it would render uneconomical the promising efforts to develop resistance characteristics to address a variety of modern crop disease problems. Furthermore, most Federal agencies and officials take the position that there is no difference between genetically modified food crops and traditional food crops, which this particular regulation would violate.
 Page 242       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In addition, APHIS has determined that genetically engineered plants are generally safe. They do not require the level of regulation that the Agency has enforced in the past. The end result is that farmers and ranchers would be denied the benefits of new developments, would see their costs increase, and productivity slowed significantly, if not decreased. The ultimate loser is the consumer, who could see higher prices, a possible decrease in quality, and a possible decrease in choice. Ironically, the proposed rule would result in the continued use and perhaps an even greater dependence on chemical pesticides because of the limitations on the development of chemical alternatives that biotechnology would bring to the particular equation.

    I have done a lot of work with the California commodity groups, and quite frankly a lot of the chemically-based alternatives are being lost either through re-registration procedures or through resistance, and the alternative would be biologically engineered products.

    Attached to this statement is a letter from the seven leading agricultural organizations in California, and just by summary, paraphrasing them, ''by adding substantial new costs to plant breeding, the proposed FIFRA regulations will discourage integration of effective new genetic methods into plant breeding program. Added costs present potent disincentives to companies whose products target small acreage crops and low acreage margins.''

    By EPA's own estimates, the proposed regulations would impose substantial new costs on plant breeders, ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 on average, and it would make difficult for many firms to justify the cost of developing and registering new plant varieties, let alone raise the necessary capital to finance this biotechnology.
 Page 243       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    So, therefore, Mr. Chairman, and behalf of these combined societies, we commend you for giving the opportunity today to provide some testimony on this very important topic, and we ask the committee to continue in assisting us, that EPA promulgate rules that make sense scientifically and that comply with Federal policy and regulation of products developed through biotechnology.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Doctor, thank you for your testimony, and going through it so rapidly and giving it a particular California flavor. I'm sure if the Chairman was here, he'd want to probably make a statement to your work and dedication.

    Mr. SIEBERT. Thank you very much, sir.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much.

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

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Soil Aquifer Treatment Research Program, anybody representing that group? Is there anybody else here for the good of the order?

    [No response.]

    If not, I'd like to thank the recorder for his time and effort. We are recessed until tomorrow morning until 10:00 a.m.
 Page 244       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thank you.
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS [presiding]. Ms. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Yes, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. I think we're going to exercise our discretion one more time. We have a colleague here with a number of difficult conflicts in his schedule. Sam, could you introduce your other guests.

    Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, you want to come up here.

    Mr. LEWIS. You want to come up here, Mr. Cox?

    I think Mr. Cox represents Mystic Seaport Museum.

    Mr. COX. I do.
 Page 245       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Sam.

    Mr. GEJDENSON. I just want to thank you for your time. I'm not going to take up a lot of time, just to say that one, I invite you to come up and see it, because it really is a spectacular site. If you saw Amistad, the movie, you saw some of Mystic Seaport in there. And the story there, you know, I think the focus is the old whaling ships and what have you, but it's a much broader story. There's one story that I'd tell you about, and let Chris do the substantive work. There was a family who fled Cuba in a small boat, and they got out in the middle of nowhere. And they were picked up by one of the ocean liners, and so they left the boat behind. And, I don't know if it was days or weeks later but a family, basically going out there on a rubber raft on its last leg, found the boat, crawled into the boat, and then took it to Key West. That's in the museum and everything from the earliest settlers. It's an incredible information system that they're now on the Web. I think Chris will tell you that when the Amistad thing hit, it had a million and half contacts to his Web page in one day. So this information is going out.

    We all come here for our local interests. I obviously have a local interest in it. This is a national issue. It's a national resource, and the resources we're asking for will help us do a better job serving the Nation.

    And with that, I give you Chris Cox.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Sam.

 Page 246       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. COX. Sam, good morning. Good morning.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Cox, we do have a Chris Cox in the House who represents none other than Newport Beach, California. No relative, I assume?

    Mr. COX. I'm afraid that it's not. [Laughter.]

    Very different sides of the world.

    Mr. LEWIS. All right. Your entire statement will be included in the record, and you can summarize as you might.

    Mr. COX. Well, I think I will.

    We have submitted a statement, but just for interest sake, we're the Williamsburg of wooden boats. We're the Smithsonian of ships. We're the largest maritime museum in the United States by ten times.

    We have some success problems, in that we have a very successful visitor relationship, and the town of Mystic and the Stoneage and Groton towns hosts millions of people in this little New England village every year. And we've gotten pretty successful at it so that our parking lots are full and we have parking problems. Success in the museum world comes down to parking.

    Economic development is the key to our future. And it isn't just yesterday that we are talking about. But we have 2,000,000 objects; 487 boats; and a reasonably large facility. This is a map of the grounds of the museum, and perhaps some of you have been there. That large building in the foreground there is the object of our interest because we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with a $22 million a year operating budget, with 26,000 members, and it's a pretty established institution from 1929.
 Page 247       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    But we don't have a lot of cash, and so that investment in the intellectual property development of our place: putting content and knowledge online and available to teachers and students and learners of all ages. And older people are probably one of the fastest growing—seniors, I guess I've learned to call them—are very interested in their own history. What the history that we have is about how America was built. It's about what we have in common as Americans, and we don't have a place to put it. It's all spread out all over the place. So this back part of this mill building here has been rebuilt with State and Federal and some small private number of dollars.

    The private dollars are interested in the public space, and the boat hall, and the conservation facility. So that we have raised $8 million so far. We're looking for another $4 million to finish the back of the house, consolidate all of the collections and the 27 staff so that we can begin to do more intellectual property development—CD ROMs, online—we're finding that online is much better because it's free and so that anybody can access it. And we've got technology that we're using from, in fact, a public-private partnership that I think you started, Sam, called Techcon. And we're using locals and schools and all this, and we're looking——

    Mr. GEJDENSON. This will go into every school in the final analysis.

    Mr. COX. Or be available to every school in the country.

    Mr. GEJDENSON. Available to any kid doing a research project, whether it's on whaling or any stage of marine development. They also have the largest collection of the photographs, which you might——
 Page 248       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. COX. Well, we have 1.2 million photographs in the collection. The photographs, now with digitalization, it's possible to actually use them. Where previously it was just a preservation problem.

    What we have discovered—there are some maritime museums all around the country and the world, but we're beginning to be asked by, for instance, in Cincinnati, this new Underground Railroad Museum that's being built on the Ohio River—they need to put the river into perspective. Where do they go to do that? What was the river was a highway. The Columbia River, the coast of California, how was it developed? How was New York City built, with what? Well, it was ships that were tractor trailer trucks of the 18th and 19th century that were coasting vessels that took stuff there. So it's very practical stories that are accessible to anyone, at any level of intellectual inquiry.

    And, in fact, through the Getty Art and Architecture Thesaurus Project, we've developed a system where we can go across collections. And this building, this American Maritime Education Research Center, will be a place where, for the first time, museum collections will be online because we had to invent the standards by which they were catalogued and put in order. So that finally you'll be able to use a museum collection like a library or university, which never before was probable——

    Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me say this: as articulate as Chris is, that what you really need to do is come up and see it. One, you'll have a great time, and there's some good restaurants there. But also, I think you get a real sense of how comprehensive an activity this is and important, not just in my region.
 Page 249       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. COX. And it's a town and local and regional economic development force because of the intellectual side of it. It's not just visitors, but there are new kinds of software, new kinds of products that we're interested in. It's difficult to project exactly how many jobs. We've had the obvious and standard surveys and research projects done. I think that they're just formulas that project into the future, depending on what you're saying. They all come out heroic—above what anybody else has been able—it's not 8 times; it's 11 and 14 times the invested dollar return. So——

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Cox, just so you'll have an idea, we haven't really received our budget allocation yet. Frankly, between Mr. Stokes and Members on both sides of the aisle and my committee, we will be talking about how we handle questions like this as we move forward. Sometimes we find ourselves in a circumstance where members decide to focus on individual projects. If Sam were to give special kinds of funding, some people might get an amendment and eliminate it. Then, you have difficulty down the line. Timing is everything in these things, but we will be looking carefully at your project. And frankly, it's this kind of thing that's of interest to me as well, so I appreciate——

    Mr. COX. Well, thank you, sir——

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate your being here——

    Mr. COX. We appreciate the chance——

    Mr. GEJDENSON. We invite the whole delegation, the whole Committee obviously.
 Page 250       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. COX. We are, in fact, building the Amistad now—an 81-foot traditionally built vessel. And Captain Bill Pickney, who is the first African-American to sail around the world by himself, I think he's slightly mad, but he's wonderful. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. He had to be. [Laughter.]

    Mr. COX. And he's going to be the captain of the boat. So we have a lot of things happening——

    Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. Some relatives of the original, you know, the people who were captured. Yes, they had his great grandchildren——

    Mr. COX. The four Pie brothers—one's a medical doctor; one's the administrator of the business school at the University of Michigan—very interesting people came——

    Mr. GEJDENSON. Down doing some work on building the model.

    Mr. COX. You know, it's a thrilling time for us.

    Mr. LEWIS. Not too long ago, they got some of us to go up to Woods Hole and look at another aspect of a similar thing——

    Mr. COX [continuing]. Yes, sir. Well, it's a sister institution. Absolutely.
 Page 251       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Correct. Correct.

    Mr. COX. They go down the sea, and we go on top of it.

    Mr. LEWIS. That's right. They took me a mile down under the water one time, so some people go a long ways to sell their projects. [Laughter.]

    Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, when you get over a mile down, that's when you cut the deal. [Laughter.]

    Mr. COX. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Sam.

    Mr. COX. Thank you so much.

    [The information follows:]

    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

 Page 252       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  



    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, we have Mr. William Polf, Dr. Polf. Please come. From the university.

    Mr. POLF. Thank you, Congressman. Good morning. How are you doing?

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your patience with our adjustment of schedule there.

    Mr. POLF. That's perfectly all right. Anyone from Connecticut is almost a New Yorker.

    Thank you for allowing me to come. I'm Dr. William A. Polf, Deputy Vice President for External Relations and Strategic Programs at the Health Sciences Center of Columbia University. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee again. I have submitted testimony——

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate that.

    Mr. POLF [continuing]. And so I will just summarize a few key points for you, Congressman. As you know in my previous appearances here, we have a unique project in New York City. Columbia University is developing the only university-related biomedical research park in New York City. And we have the only biotechnology business incubator in New York City. And what that allows us to do is to not only expand biomedical research in important disease areas, such as cancer, diabetes, do basic genetic research, but also to stimulate the creation of new business, and to literally incubate start-up companies in an urban environment. We are in the New York City Empowerment Zone. Congressman Charles Rangel, who is our good friend and congressman, is one of the longest supporters of the Audubon Project for many years, and he is thrilled to see it reaching the level of maturity it has.
 Page 253       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    With the support of this committee, we have done some wonderful things just during the past year. I might mention a few highlights. We have opened the first comprehensive diabetes research and clinical care in New York City, doing everything from studying the genetic origins of diabetes to the most advanced level of care and integrated care with other medical disciplines. We now have reached the point of having started 17 companies in the Audubon Project in two years; some of whom have been so successful that we've already graduated one or two to our regret. But that's the point of an incubator. And we have reached a point now I think of being a major presence in terms of new science, new medical science and a major force in economic development.

    In my previous appearances here, we have always respectfully asked for the support of this subcommittee, understanding its importance. And this year, we hope for the consideration of a support of $10 million, if that's possible, for work on our third Audubon facility, known as Audubon Three, which will continue to integrate and expand our biomedical research base with the incubation of new companies. So with that Congressman, and Congressman Meek, nice to be here today. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me pose a question: is it your intention to make a similar appeal with Labor, HHS where sometimes there's more funding available than sometimes we're allocated?

    Mr. POLF. Yes, we do seek whatever funding is available through Labor, HHS in both Houses. And we continue to seek that as the opportunities are available to us.

 Page 254       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. I presume that you had some sense for that.

    Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm still looking for his testimony. Oh, here it is. I'm sorry.

    Mr. LEWIS. That's all right. Mrs. Meek was at a meeting earlier today talking with senior citizens about 202 housing. She just about blew them away.

    Mrs. MEEK. I had such good backing. The Chairman was there. I could go a little bit further than I normally would. Well, how's the park doing? I missed that.

    Mr. POLF. It's doing terrifically. We have two buildings constructed now. We have 17 companies in our incubator, that have gone through our incubator. We have expanded our research programs. One of our big moves last year was in diabetes. We have a comprehensive diabetes center doing both genetic work in diabetes as well as new clinical outreach and clinical care. I should also mention we have a new—with support of this committee—a new program of direct medical care to the neighborhood, which is a neighborhood that is medically under-served, and so we're able to expand our medical care services to the Washington Heights and the Harlem neighborhoods.

    Mrs. MEEK. You think you'll generate some more jobs?

    Mr. POLF. We're certain we are. We have generated probably about 800 now in the two facilities that we have, and when we ultimately have completed all five facilities, there will be somewhere around 2,500 new jobs. I was saying to Congressman Lewis that we're in Congressman Rangel's district and Congressman Rangel has been one of our longest supporters since the origin of the Park.
 Page 255       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you so much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Polf. We appreciate your being with us.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Mr. Dick Steinberg with Westcare. Oh he is? Hello, George. I didn't see you come in. George Radanovich, my colleague from California, is going to do the honors.

    Mr. RADANOVICH. I'd like to introduce Dick, please. Carrie, good to see you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to introduce Dick Steinberg from Fresno to talk about—actually from a group called Westcare from Fresno that's seeking funds for the establishment of resident community health care campus center, which is substance abuse. Mr. Steinberg knows the subject much better than I do, and I want to introduce Dick and let him make his presentation.
 Page 256       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. I told you I appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. RADANOVICH. Good to be here. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Go right ahead, Mr. Steinberg.

    Mr. STEINBERG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing Westcare to come before you this morning and testify. I've been with Westcare for the past 20 years as the President and CEO, I'm really fortunate to be in a non-profit organization such as Westcare. We're kind of made up of programs—serving programs in Arizona, Nevada, and California. You've had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I understand to visit one of our programs actually in the Mojave Valley, about 20 miles out of Needleswood. Your namesake, Jerry Lewis, who's one of our board members in that part of the region.

    Mr. LEWIS. Several years ago.

    Mr. STEINBERG. Yes, sir. And we're doing similar types of programming obviously in Fresno. We've been operating a program over there for a little over six and one-half years. And we have an opportunity right now to purchase a rather large facility. It's a hospital that originally wanted $20 million, and we now have them down to a potential purchase price of $12 million for the whole project—some 85,000 square-foot building. This will be a collaboration to a whole health care facility system with substance abuse, homeless treatment, and volunteer issues with the community serving our needs.

 Page 257       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    We think we can really bring all the programs together by doing this in one simple little piece. I think that's the main thing, and we have some real vocational training issues that we can also provide at the Center. We served a little over 2,700 people last year. There's a growing need in the community unfortunately in that community for more services of this kind, with a tremendous amount of homeless transitional services needed at the same time.

    Drug abuse, just like everywhere else, is definitely rampant in the Fresno area, and we think that this project here would turn things around. We're calling it the Fresno Community Health Care campus. We think it's got a lot of possibilities to bring about under one roof.

    We're asking the committee for $2 million to assist with approximately 50 percent of the cost of putting this whole thing together, with the board and the community working on the balance in Fresno to put it together.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Steinberg, you may have heard my comment from a question earlier of Dr. Polf, in which I suggested that there is one more than one source around the Congress. Sometimes—as budget allocations take place over time, it's good to look around. So George will I know will be of assistance. I know that HHS is a prospect here as well. And so, I'd urge you to do that. We have not seen our budget allocation yet, but we appreciate your coming, and we'll do everything we can.

    Mr. POLF. Thank you, sir.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.
 Page 258       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you. Thank you for coming.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate your being with us.

    Mr. POLF. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks, George.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Nan Roman, representing the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Hello there.

    Ms. ROMAN. I have my disclosure form.

 Page 259       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Your disclosure form, all right.

    Ms. ROMAN. Thank you so much for giving us the time to speak to you today about the homeless programs at HUD. These programs really overall are working well. They're oversubscribed, of course. But largely they're keeping people off the street, and HUD has done a really good job we think of improving the administration of the programs so that they're more comprehensive now, and so that the assistance is more comprehensive and there's more coordination locally.

    But having said this, there is something that I do want to bring to your attention, an emerging issue that we very much ask you to address. It's our belief that the homeless assistance that's delivered by HUD should be very much outcome driven and that the desired outcome of it is that people who are homeless aren't homeless anymore.

    Mr. LEWIS. That's a reasonable idea.

    Ms. ROMAN. Yes. We think if the system isn't outcome-based, then we're just always providing band-aids and not only is that not good for homeless people, but it means that you all—we're going to be here before you every year asking for money to continue a system that's not outcome driven.

    The question, then, is can we make the existing system more outcome-driven? Well, it's our opinion that we can do that, and that you can do something about. And in this, we concur with the major thrusts of Chairman Lazio's legislation, 217, that reorganizes the homeless assistance system.
 Page 260       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Let me explain a little bit about that. The major users of homeless emergency assistance are people with chronic disabilities, chronic mental illness, and chronic substance and alcohol abuse illness. This is population that's relatively fixed in size. It doesn't keep expanding. There's not sort of an unending need in that population. And we're serving this population largely through emergency shelters now, which is not an end game-oriented way to serve them. We think that rather than serving them through the shelter system and then the jail and hospital system, which sort of is associated with that, we ought to be serving them with permanent supportive housing, which is better for them and cost effective for us. But the share of homeless assistance money that's going to permanent housing for homeless people has decreased to I think about 18 percent, as near as we can tell in the last round of assistance at HUD, which is rather a small percentage of that money.

    On the other hand, families who are experiencing economic crises tend to get from this money longer-term transitional assistance with a lot of services that we don't have any real—they probably need those services, but it's not really demonstrated that that helps them get on their feet in terms of housing. So the system is a little bit off kilter, despite the fact that it's locally controlled, which is positive, and it's getting people off the street. It's not really very outcome-driven.

    So to address that, we would like to ask you for the following:

    First, of course, we support the Administration's request for $1.15 billion in homeless assistance. I know you've received a letter signed by Chairman Leach and Lazio supporting that as well as several other people. We'd like to ask you to increase that to $1.15 billion in order to do the following, which is to ensure that 30 percent of those resources are spent, at least 30 percent, on permanent housing. I think this would give us the potential really over time to end homelessness for people with chronic disabilities and then to free up resources for families and people who are experiencing an economic crisis. And this would make the system much more results-oriented.
 Page 261       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We also strongly support the Administration's overall fiscal year 1999 request for funding HUD's request for funding. Certainly, the current housing trends are startling. We have worst-case housing needs that seem to be unaffected by the robust economy. We have rents up, and working families increasingly having housing problems. The suburbs are increasingly having housing problems. So obviously these sorts of things contribute to homelessness. We think Secretary Cuomo is making progress on the management stuff and that money given to the Department is going to go to good causes, so we're very supportive of their overall request as well.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. I very much appreciate your testimony. Mrs. Meek, do you have a question?

    Mrs. MEEK. No, I do not.

    Mr. LEWIS. Do you have some questions, Joe?

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. You're done.

    Mr. LEWIS. I might mention that one of our difficulties involves the reality that about 85 percent of our bill is not authorized.

    Ms. ROMAN. Right. [Laughter.]
 Page 262       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. And yet the authorizing committees are very hesitant about our putting authorizing language on those bills, so two points I guess. Not really a question. But outcome-driven objectives as it relates to homelessness are pretty fundamental, and some of that relates to new authority. So far, we've had great resistance to relative to putting authorizing language on our bill. You might be able to help us with that.

    Ms. ROMAN. I'd be happy to try.

    Mr. LEWIS. But secondly, even more importantly, you might be able to help us in making sure that all the forces recognize it would help us all if we got a bill through the Senate, went through conference, and actually got to the President's desk.

    Ms. ROMAN. Well, I'd be happy to work on that. I think there are a couple of things that you could do on the bill. Even asking—I mean, this could really be accomplished with the existing program with points incentives because now services, for example, service programs don't require a match, whereas housing programs require a match. Right there, that's an authorizing issue. But that's a problem. I think if you instructed the Department to incentivize it with points that would probably help.

    Mr. LEWIS. If we get a broader view that took a look at the fact that we've made public policy decisions over many, many years. The promises that we were making to solve homelessness, never quite followed through at the local community level with clinics and otherwise to make sure that people take their medicine and so on. We do need some help from the authorizers, and so we just raise that point.
 Page 263       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. ROMAN. Yes. Okay.

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much for being here, Ms. Roman.

    Ms. ROMAN. I brought some information. I'll just give it to Valerie about the amendment.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes, thank you very much. We'll include that in the file and we appreciate it. Thank you.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see. Mr. Albert C. Eisenberg, representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

 Page 264       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. EISENBERG. Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you. Actually, I'm representing NACO, the Conference of Mayors, a number of other organizations today, and generally local officials. I'm Vice Chairman of the Arlington, Virginia County Board, and pleased to present the views of these groups on programs you are well familiar with. We are looking at CDBG and HOME programs. We are not asking you to authorize anything, we're just looking for some more money, with a couple of flips and twists to that. We do commend you for your past support of these programs, for the increases you've provided in the past.

    Let me note an issue with respect to set-asides. We've found that over the last several years, the set-asides have grown from $95 million within CDBG to almost $.5 billion, and as a result, the basic program has reduced 3 percent a year for entitlement jurisdiction. So we would urge you all to take another look at the way the program is being balkanized and turned away from its principal purposes of block grant program.

    We would like you to increase the overall CDBG program to $4.725 billion. This is the president's recommendation. I won't go into why this is a successful program. You all know that. I was amazed to learn that as many as 17,000,000 households benefit from this program, and almost 115,000 jobs have been created.

    Mr. LEWIS. I know you're not going to read all those figures, are you?

    Mr. EISENBERG. No. No, that's why I'm turning quickly to my notes and respect your time, and hope this would be included in the record. We do support as a general principle the regional connections initiative, and we just simply indicate that a lot of work gets done at the regional level and the government should help facilitate that.
 Page 265       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In terms of the HOME program, you yourself have noted that this program has worked. You've seen this for a long time. It was a bipartisan creation. We would like to see that program, which is returning, as I understand, as much as 80 percent on the dollar—80 cents on the dollar to at least $1.55 billion, again as proposed by the administration.

    Two last issues and then a personal comment. We would also like to see the FHA limits increased to $227,150. It's a program that, as you well know, was supposed to be a broad program, in terms of the broad spectrum of American home buyers. And we think that by expanding to this level, even though you've got to—people have to pay that mortgage at that price. It's not at that price for very low income, but it would by spreading the program benefits help make sure that the program is actually viable and strong.

    We would urge, with all due respect, that in the supplemental appropriation bill, the emergency bill, that we not use section 8 reserves. We think, again with all due respect, it would be ironic in the extreme congressional compassion for people who have lost their homes to natural disasters. The price of that was paid by people who, because expiring contracts weren't renewed adequately, lost their homes as well. It's been rather than representing community—represent the entire community, not just a section.

    If there's one problem we have that is probably our greatest problem, it's affordable housing. For people at 30 percent median income, probably 3,500 households—I'll correct the record for the exact number—there are only 337 units technically affordable to these people in the entire Arlington County where we have 85,000 housing units. We have a desperate situation in terms of housing—affordable housing. And when you're poor in an affluent community, you're really poor. And these programs are vital to us in our community, to Northern Virginia. We appreciate your support in the past, and we appreciate your paying attention to our views today. And again, to respect your schedule, that concludes my testimony.
 Page 266       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate that very much. Thank you, Mr. Eisenberg.

    Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you. I have no questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Knollenberg.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Just one comment. I understand that you're in favor of raising the FHA limit. You mentioned also in your testimony, written testimony that some 350,000 households were denied credit. Was that because of the limit? Or was it for some other reason?

    Mr. EISENBERG. This is in the conventional mortgage market because FHA, of course, provides some break, even in these low interest times and provides some flexibility in their programs. I served for a time on the Virginia Housing Development Authority, and we were able to partner with FHA to provide some very creative programs for very low-income people. Now, of course, we're asking for the increase here because even people in the median and somewhat higher incomes can find that the interest rates and the down payment requirements particularly can affect their ability to secure mortgage credit.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. What was the denial based upon the limit being imposed?
 Page 267       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. EISENBERG. I will have to ask for some assistance there. We don't know that particular item.

    Mr. MURPHY. Since they were reached by the conventional market.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Okay.

    Mr. EISENBERG. That was my impression.

    Mr. MURPHY. Well, if the limit were raised, chances are they'd get the proposal.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Chances are a lot. Okay. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Before you leave. The reporter couldn't hear you. They got to get people on record, George. We give that to yourself, John. Respond.

    Mr. MURPHY. I'm John Murphy. The Association of Labaz Clients Agencies, one of the organizations that's data that was complied by the Federal Reserve Board and released in a statement by Secretary Cuomo to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. The inference being that, because they were not served by the conventional market, FHA was available to them that potentially we could serve another 300,000 plus households.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Potentially.
 Page 268       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Thank you.

    Mrs. MEEK. I have a question. I believe in your testimony you mentioned that the CDBG program works most effectively when communities practice concentrated investment. Would you clarify that?

    Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, I'm glad you asked that question. It applies to my community and a number of others. We've found over the years that it makes sense to approach problems in our communities in a holistic, coordinated fashion. The enterprise zone program that this Congress was wise to approve is very much in that spirit, and we can apply Community Development Block Grant program and a variety of HUD programs with programs from the Department of Health and Human Services, Transportation. We can put these programs together in a workable, flexible fashion at the local level in areas where we've identified a particular need, a particular problem, and people together devise the solutions and CDBG and home are important—actually, they're an important part of the glue that makes those programs work.

    Mrs. MEEK. All right. Thank you. I understand that.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Eisenberg, before you leave, I do have a couple of questions that may or may not be fair. But I know that you represent an area in Arlington County, so you may or may not be aware of the National Conference of Mayors press release in the last couple of days that deals with an issue that involves public housing. Specifically, the Conference of Mayors suggests by way of their press release that HUD's Inspector General has some way been involved in a nefarious sort of activity that essentially would have her conspiring in some special way that might involve racism in selecting certain cities for evaluation of the way money is flowing to public housing programs. Are you aware of this?
 Page 269       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. EISENBERG. I am not, Mr. Chairman. Arlington County itself has no public housing per se. Our voters have not approved housing authority. We operate entirely through the private sector partnership approach, non-profits and profits with their arrangements, and to address our public——

    Mr. LEWIS. Maybe you can take a message back. The Committee has been very carefully moving forward with an expression of its concern about sizeable volumes of housing dollars that may be going to urban centers in the country but may not be getting to the people that they were designed to support or help in the first place. It has been suggested by some Conference of Mayors, that in some way HUD's Inspector General selected cities with some design of racial intent—Black mayors et cetera. She has not announced publicly the cities she's selected to my knowledge, and we asked her not to at our last formal hearing. We are going to have an ongoing discussion here. But, the National Conference of Mayors, by way of press release, came to conclusions that would suggest otherwise is not helpful to any of us. I hope somebody would get that message.

    This is a very important issue that involves the basic question: If we're going to appropriate dollars that are designed to help the poorest of the poor, are they getting there? And can we independently evaluate those questions perhaps it's staff people with the National Conference who are coming to conclusions that appear to me to be totally erroneous.

    Mr. EISENBERG. Representatives of that organization are in the room today, and I'm sure they've heard you loud and clear.

 Page 270       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. I hope so. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

    Sorry to throw that at you.

    Mr. EISENBERG. It's understandable.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see. Next. We are going to go one more time and exercise discretion. We have Mr. Danny Davis here from the beautiful State of Illinois to introduce one of his friends, and take that testimony. Mr. Davis.

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

    Mr. LEWIS. He wants to be able to sneak out. [Laughter.]

 Page 271       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. DAVIS. You have a tremendous chairman to testify before who's done an outstanding job. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for the opportunity to be here—you and members of the Committee—to introduce Anthony Cole from Haymarket House, and, of course, Mr. Cole will tell you about their program and the needs and what we're attempting to accomplish. But I would just mention the fact that Haymarket House is one of the outstanding innovative organizations when it comes to the treatment of substance abuse. It's founder, Father McDermott, throughout the Chicago-land area is fondly known as Father ''Mac'' because he started a street ministry and has built from that an outstanding social service agency that is on par with any that you would find anywhere in the Nation. And they just do outstanding work, and certainly Mr. Cole will be able to talk about the needs that they're trying to meet. And I just appreciate the opportunity that you've give me to be with him this morning.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

    Mr. Cole, welcome to the Committee. If you'd summarize your statement, we'll include it in entirety in the record and from there we're anxious to hear from you.

    Mr. COLE. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Lewis, for providing Haymarket House the opportunity to present testimony to your subcommittee this year. I am certainly honored to have our congressman here to share his very favorable comments about services and our programs and our founder.

    My name is Anthony Cole. I am Vice President of Haymarket Center. We are the largest drug treatment in Chicago. We service about 13,000 clients annually.

 Page 272       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Our primary service population, as you said, is the poorest of the poor. It's the indigent population. In addition to our conventional treatment programs, for both men and women, we offer targeted high-risk populations such as pregnant post partum. In that regard, we have delivered over 354 drug-free babies, whose drug-addicted mothers became drug-free, as a result of the treatment they received at Haymarket House. They received full treatment to deliver drug-free babies. And we had a study done on that, and we saved over $250 million to the taxpayer as a result of that.

    We also have some very innovative programs in terms of HIV. We received regional and State awards for our services for HIV, and we also had to do a diagnose program for the homeless mentally ill. So we try to be innovative. We've recently brought on board a health clinic, on site. We also have a day care center on site that we want to expand. We want to do a full continuum of care for our clients.

    Having expanded well beyond our building's capacity currently of 150,000 square feet, Haymarket was fortunate to acquire a 10-year renewable lease in a large building directly adjacent to our main facility. Approximately one-fourth of the available space is now being utilized to care for the children of our long-term clients. An opportunity currently exists to utilize the remainder of this space for a new community and family learning center, whose programs will address the needs of our clients and their dependents and will allow for substantial community and economic development.

    We began to recognize the need for the community and family learning center as we studied the effects of family unification and the accessibility to affordable child care on those suffering from substance abuse. A major barrier to the treatment for our women clients is the affordable child care. When we try to provide residential treatment, many of these women have young infants and newborns, even, and we have to have a way of providing affordable and accessible child care for them.
 Page 273       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In addition to that, as they transition from our residential programs to our outpatient or after-care programs, there is a continued need for child care services. So we've got that started, but we need to do more for that. There's just not enough of it. So this is a type of opportunity in terms of the community and family learning center will allow us to expand our child care and also provide some learning opportunities, vocational services for our clients.

    The lack of very accessible and affordable child care again is a major barrier for women seeking treatment. In addition, approximately 60 percent of clients lack a high school diploma. That's a major barrier to employment. A high percentage lack permanent housing and many of our clients have not developed social relation skills apart from the drug culture. Most of our clients lack the skills and job readiness necessary to complete—compete rather for even unskilled employment, adding the burden of unemployment to their substance abuse problems. So Haymarket proposes to address these needs of our high risk population with our new community and family learning center. The center will provide hands-on training, expose learners to the demands of today's information-driven workplace. Community resources and technology will assist in building upon the individual strengths of our clients and families. Reading, writing, information management and organizational skills will be emphasized.

    In addition to expansion of our newly-opened child care center, Haymarket will assist in augmenting services provided to our infants and toddlers and provide services to children on our waiting list. We have a waiting list on any given day. We have about 70-80 calls come in every day. To foster community interaction, flexible rooms in the new center will allow for meetings among program participants as well as the larger community. The total cost of our proposal would be $1.4 million.
 Page 274       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Haymarket understands the Federal government has limited resources. However, we think that this is a good bang for the buck. We have looked at various studies and we have found that whenever you deal with substance abuse, you reduce crime. Whenever you address the issue of substance abuse, you reduce health care costs, and on and on and on. So we know in terms of taxpayers' dollars, when you fund substance abuse services and make those services holistic, that you significantly impact other areas, particularly crime and health.

    So in conclusion, in fiscal year 1999, Haymarket Center is seeking $1.4 million to complete the learning center through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Economic Development Initiative. I understand it's called EDI.

    Mr. Chairman, Haymarket House appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony this year.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Cole, thank you very much for your testimony. We very much appreciate your being with us. I might mention one item. Mr. Davis, especially to you, as we struggle with these dollars around here, the Child Development Act of 1972 was a piece of legislation I had a the privilege of carrying when I was member of the State legislature in California. It had some firsts, I think, in the country in terms of quality day care with educational components and health components et cetera. In the last four years, the Congress has discovered child care. We're a little bit behind the curve, so we need your input and we very much appreciate your being here in connection with that and we hope to be able to work with you further.

 Page 275       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. COLE. Thank you, Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you so much, Mr. Cole. Good to see you again.

    Mr. COLE. Yes, nice to see you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Knollenberg.

    Mr. KNOLLENBERG. No questions. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thanks for being with us.

    Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. My pleasure.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.


 Page 276       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  


    Mr. LEWIS. I might mention to members that we are only about 20 minutes behind our normal schedule at this point in time, and that's usually the chairman's fault because I like to be flexible with people who are making presentations before, but we've got to move right along if we're going to get our work done.

    So our next guest is Javier Salazar, speaking for AIDS Action. Javier. Mr. Salazar.

    Mr. SALAZAR. Good morning. My name again is Javier Salazar and I'm a legislative representative with AIDS Action Council. AIDS Action, as you may know, is the national voice of over 2,400 community-based AIDS service providers from across the country and the people living with HIV/AIDS they serve.

    Mr. Lewis, Mr. Knollenberg, and Mrs. Meek, I want to thank all of you. I want to thank you as a person living with HIV and on behalf of all people living with HIV in this country, their families and their care givers, for all the work that you've done in support of the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Program.

    Your work has made a critical contribution in achieving the tremendous strides that our Nation is making in the fight against HIV and AIDS. The CDC's statistics continue to demonstrate this trend—that started in 1996—towards a dramatic drop in the number of AIDS-related deaths. Since then, it's been about a 45 percent drop in AIDS-related death.
 Page 277       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    However, while the overall numbers of people dying with AIDS declined significantly last year, the number of people living with AIDS has increased.

    This increase translates directly into a greater need for health care, treatment, and social services, including housing.

    When once there were few treatments for HIV disease, now we face the rationing of care, drugs, and vital social services.

    Now that we have new and effective treatments, we must ensure their availability as well as access to the care and services needed to ensure their success.

    Housing is a critical component of this strategy. It has been the commitment of this committee to this small, but invaluable, program that has ensured that thousands of individuals have a fighting chance at living longer and better lives.

    Today, people living with HIV have a real cause for hope. HOPWA, part of the Federal housing response for people living with AIDS, has helped thousands of needy individuals face these challenges. Although HOPWA funding has increased significantly in the past two years, thanks to your leadership and the leadership of this committee, the program has been historically underfunded. The amount of housing provided has never, never, been nearly sufficient to meet the true needs.

    Today, as a result of recent advances in care and treatment, people that are currently being housed are living longer causing less turnover in existing housing programs and creating longer and longer waiting lists. HOPWA fulfills a need not met by other Federal housing programs. Many programs like section 8 have waiting lists that are even today longer than the average lifespan of a person with AIDS. Other programs like CDBG fund activities far more politically popular than housing people with AIDS. And many people with HIV still have access in HUD programs that serve people with disabilities because of HUD's historic position that such programs cannot be used for targeted housing that meets the needs of people with particular disabilities such as HIV and AIDS.
 Page 278       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    HUD serves thousands of people living with HIV and their communities ranging from New Jersey and North Carolina to Florida and Mississippi, from Ohio and Wisconsin to Texas and California. In fiscal year 1998, 88 jurisdictions, 59 cities and 29 States, qualified for HOPWA formula grants, and HUD estimates that 7 to 10 new jurisdictions will qualify for fiscal year 1999.

    The President's request seeks to increase HOPWA funding by 10 percent to a total of $225 million. While below what we estimate is needed in Fiscal Year 1999, this increase would at least—the $21 million increase—would at least ensure that cities and States, and housing projects in your community, can work to address the ever-increasing needs of their citizens with HIV and AIDS.

    This committee can help us to ensure that no American living with HIV disease is denied care, treatment, even life itself, just because they do not have a stable place to live.

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Salazar, for being with us. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I just wanted to compliment him on a very good presentation.

 Page 279       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. And brief, as well. [Laughter.]

    Mrs. MEEK. And brief.

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me mention to you, Mr. Salazar, that it was in 1981—I remember it very clearly—that the first funding for issues questions relative to HIV and AIDS was reported in this very subcommittee at a time when Members of Congress across the board had little idea of the problem. We've been involved for a number of years. I think you know that there are other subcommittees that address the question as well, as we're happy to work with you and I appreciate you being here.

    Mr. SALAZAR. Thank you. It's clear that when people think about—or when the public thinks about the work that's being done on AIDS, and where the advances have come, it's typically another receptive committee is mentioned first, but I have to say that the work that this committee is completely invaluable and the role that you play, you can't put a price on it, for the help that your offering people today.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Salazar. We appreciate it.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you, thank you.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
 Page 280       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Douglas MacDonald is the Executive Director for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.

    Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. MacDonald.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I have had the privilege of talking to you before and the support of the Committee and I thought I would just give you the quickest of updates for the benefit of this. There's plenty of material on this. But I know that a question for you has to be with regard to the project—

    Mr. LEWIS. We've heard of this project.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I know you have. [Laughter.]

    I know you have, and I can't tell you how much difference your support has meant, but I think that showing it to you in the form of this graph might make it very clear. You can see in these sort of environmentally greens and blues, with contributions that come through this committee to this $3.8 billion project, that dark red is the share that has remained for our ratepayers, so the local contribution, and the pink is the contribution—early on when we came to talk to the government about helping the project, they thought it was essential that the State of Massachusetts also made a contribution—in that time, the pink is what has come from the State of Massachusetts.
 Page 281       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Four pages on in the brochure, but I can show it to you with this, is the picture of what has happened to household rates, the significant increases and impacts that people have borne as a result of this federally-mandated project. And you can translate the differences that your contributions have made into the diminishing scale of the increases. We are continuing to push water and sewer rates up in Massachusetts because we know this is fundamentally in force—our project to pay for it.

    So it has not meant that our rates have even offered the crisis that people feel about rates has stopped, and because of the need to finish the project, which I have to tell you, is now 91 percent complete, so we are close to the end of this exercise. But the prospect for the next few years is a resumption, this includes some other extending for combined sewer overflows and so on.

    Mr. LEWIS. I understand.

    Mr. MACDONALD. So you can see dramatically that each year that you have given us the help that you've given us, it has made a direct difference while not diminishing our responsibilities in Boston to carry the major burden of the project. I thought it was a simple way of showing you what——

    Mr. LEWIS. It is very helpful.

    Mr. MACDONALD [continuing]. What you have done for us year after year, and what a difference it makes if you can continue it this year.
 Page 282       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, thank you.

    Mr. MACDONALD. But I want to talk about, just very briefly——

    Mr. LEWIS. Let me just mention that while your entire testimony will be in the record, the charts are helpful and they'll be included in our file as well.

    Mr. MACDONALD. And we have submitted testimony for the record——

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay. Thank you.

    Mr. MACDONALD [continuing]. And not included was one thing I thought you would like as members of the Committee. This project is about the Clean Water Act, it's about public health, it's about people using beaches, and it's about a national symbol, if you will, of communities undertaking to do the projects that have to be done.

    But we do every now and then get some serendipitous evidence of what this project means in an environmental sense, and I thought you and members of the staff would enjoy a recent article from the ''Boston Globe'' that points out that porpoises now are all along the shoreline of the harbor, feeding on the herring. And so we do, in fact, have evidence in nature. We don't have to—we can go right to the key determinants of this and know that this project actually makes a difference.
 Page 283       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Excuse me, is that the correct English? Is it porpoises or ''porpii?'' [Laughter.]

    Mrs. MEEK. If I was a major, I would say porpoises.

    Mr. LEWIS. Okay, all right. Thank you very much. [Laughter.]

    Mr. MACDONALD. Well, as you can see, the way the writer here dealt with it is saying that, ''We have a growing sense of porpoise around our project.'' [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Well, for goodness sakes.

    Mr. MACDONALD. So I thought that—we are doing this project for the porpoises, we're doing it for the Clean Water Act, and we're doing it public health, and we're doing it as a matter of environmental responsibility, but it is helpful to know that some of the broader purposes that we pursue by these environmental projects make a difference.

    Now I'd be glad to answer your questions. I know you know the project intimately, and I really come each year to thank you for what you've done.

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate very much your coming and your testimony. We do know the project very well, and while I don't have any questions, I do look forward to continuing to work with you, sir.
 Page 284       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you very much. Members of our delegation are going to be here tomorrow.

    Mr. LEWIS. We will ask them about the project.

    Thank you.

    Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I don't have anything.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    Mr. MACDONALD. I appreciate you having us again this year.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.

 Page 285       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  



    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Tom Smith who is the Executive Director of Rural Enterprises Incorporated. Mr. Smith, welcome.

    Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have accompanying me today, off to the side with Congressman Wes Watkins' office, Jeff Strongberg, and Laura Beneton with Government Affairs at Fannie Mae.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good, thank you.

    Mr. SMITH. As you have stated, my testimony has been submitted and hopefully the oral testimony will be as well.

    Mr. LEWIS. Appreciate that. It will be in the record.

    Mr. SMITH. Great. I have my summary request. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to represent Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma. I appear before you today to request an appropriation of $450,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Economic Development Initiative Special Projects, EDI.

 Page 286       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    The appropriation request is for rural economic activities to meet the needs of small businesses with the ultimate result of creating jobs in rural Oklahoma. The need for such appropriation is substantiated by the increase in demand for rural Oklahoma entrepreneurs for financing business assistance. Currently, the services of Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma include the most recent in this year, a taxable, single-family mortgage bond program, 1998 Series A, of $12.5 million in commitments from local rural banks, financial services, including U.S. Small Business Administration, lending programs, as well as serving as an intermediary lender for the Economic Development Administration and the Rural Development Administration, business development and small business incubator services, technology services, international trade assistance. Our organization just recently received grant authority from the Federal Trade Zone's board here in Washington for the operation of a general purpose board trade zone in southern Oklahoma.

    The demand for such financial assistance by small businesses is evidenced by public financing secured by our organization of $24 million for 70 Oklahoma businesses in 1997. This financing helped create and retain over 2,400 jobs in rural Oklahoma. Also, the number of business incubators has grown to include facilities in 11 rural Oklahoma communities.

    To try to facilitate our services, the REI board of directors, which number 13, recently passed the resolution to participate as an issuer of taxable single-family mortgage revenue bonds with down payment assistance included. This is the first rural taxable bond issue initiated in Oklahoma in a total nationwide program. The second bond issue is already underway to serve the remaining 40 rural Oklahoma counties to provide affordable housing for our growing workforce in rural Oklahoma. The requested appropriation from HUD will help facilitate and expand this rural housing program.
 Page 287       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma is nonprofit 501(c)(3) economic development firm headquartered in southeastern rural Oklahoma. Our combination of business services and our ability to envision the needs for the future of small business is what sets Rural Enterprises apart from other economic development firms. The testimony of the organization's vision is the current construction of a 3,000 square foot foreign trade zone center with two business incubators inclusive. This project further testifies to the need for HUD appropriations since it would require additional resources to assist rural Oklahoma small businesses wishing to enter the foreign markets.

    Rural Enterprises has obtained a credible reputation for its economic development programs and affords accountability for finding resources for small businesses. HUD appropriations are essential to continuance of our economic development programs to serve these rural Oklahoma communities and their businesses.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. As you indicated, your entire statement will be included in the record. We appreciate you being present. We very much appreciate the work of your Congressman, Wes Watkins, and we'll try to work very closely with him as we go forward from here. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.
 Page 288       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    [The information follows:]
    Offiset Folios 1922 to 1928 insert here
Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Hiscox, how are you sir? You know the routine.

    Mr. HISCOX. Thanks for the opportunity to appear before you. Before we address the 1999 appropriation, I'd like to speak just for a minute to some pending business, the current situation regarding section 8 reforming. We know that we're headed for a section 8 budget crisis. We think that——

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for that. [Laughter.]

    Mr. HISCOX [continuing]. Reducing the section 8 preservation account which is intended to buffer that crisis was probably not a good thing to do. We hope that's taken care of in conference committee. I come from a State that was ravaged by the recent floods, so we know the importance of disaster relief, but I don't think there's a single family that was rendered homeless by the flood that would want their home restored to the extent of making another family homeless, and we implore you not to let the flood strike twice.
 Page 289       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Concerning operating subsidy, since the Brooks Amendment in 1968 and subsequently, the section took income completely out of the control of housing authorities. It's been replaced primarily by operating subsidies, and we believe Congress really only has two choices. One is to fund the operating subsidy at 100 percent of our eligibility which represents a realistic assessment of what it takes to run a housing authority, or to deregulate us seriously and give us back control of our income. There really isn't much in the way of middle ground. We cannot continue to treat the Brooks Amendment, as we want to, treat the Brooks Amendment as sacred and treat subsidy as profane.

    And PHADA strongly recommends that we get 100 percent funding of our PFS eligibility until such time as we're substantially deregulated. Lots of folks who fear this fear negative impact on low-income families, but as Congressman Knollenberg is certainly aware, because of your sponsorship of rent reform legislation a few years ago, there certainly is strong, friendly byproducts for our residents in real rent reform. By eliminating negative incentives to employment, we benefit low-income families without hurting the very lowest-income families that we serve. And we thank you for that past support.

    Concerning modernization, modernization is the lifeblood of our CLPHA plan. We were first, foremost and always will be, a fiscal plan program. There's been over $90 billion invested in it since the inception of the program. We've been cut from $3.7 billion to around $2.5 billion now.

    HOPE VI consumes far too much of the pot. Yes, I know it's not in the same account as conventional modernization but it was created about the same time that MOD was reduced and it is capital funding for housing authorities, at the same time small housing authorities are getting killed.
 Page 290       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In my home State, we had the 155 housing authorities that are less than 250 units. I'm not one of them so I'm not speaking for my own interest here. Ninety-nine of those in 1996 applied for modernization funds. They applied for a total of $172 million and only $15 million was available to fund them. Of that, over $13 million was emergency needs such as replacing furnaces with burned out combustion chambers. At the same time, one Georgia housing authority received a HOPE VI grant that was more than three times that size, in the $50 million range, at a time when they had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modernization backlog.

    We support the principles of HOPE VI, the flexibility, the use for demolition for replacement housing, for mixed-income housing, all of those things, but we believe that HOPE VI should be folded back into the pot and that formula grants should include small PHAs, as well, with the ability to borrow as in section 108 that we have a community development block grant against that for future needs.

    Last but not least, we support continued funding of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. This is a survival issue for many of us. We use Drug Elimination to make great headway against crime and gangs and drugs in our neighborhoods, and it has been a terrifically successful program. We urge you to resist the tendency to block grant the money, unless you are prepared, of course, to roughly triple the appropriation. Generally PHADA favors block grants but in this case, it's the exception that proves the rule—competitive funding with drug elimination to make sure that the money goes to places that have identified real needs, that have demonstrated that they have a plan that addresses those needs and have demonstrated administrative capability to handle the funds when they receive them. And only by doing that can we make the limited pot of money go to the places where it is needed most and will be spent best.
 Page 291       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I stand ready to answer any questions you might have, and I thank you for your attention.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Hiscox, first, your statement is very much appreciated. Your pointing early on to the challenge that we have relative to section 8 is important for this committee. You are a convenient pot, but it's not a pot that we can afford to ignore as we go forward, and all of us knowing that is very important if we're going to be able to effectively carry forward our work. Further, let me say to you that I come from rural America, and Small Housing Authorities have a special place in my own mind. But, nonetheless, the pressures are very real and I know that you appreciate that.

    Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. I don't have any questions. Thank you for your testimony.

    Mr. HISCOX. Thank you for your kindness.

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

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.
 Page 292       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  




    Mr. LEWIS. Liza Bowles who is the President of the NAHB Research Center.

    Ms. BOWLES. Hi, how are you?

    Mr. LEWIS. Fine, thank you very much.

    Ms. BOWLES. I just wanted to make a few points this morning to kind of add emphasis to parts that were included in my written testimony and I will be brief. In trying to think about what we do and what to say to the Committee this morning, we represent the National Association of Home Builders, and we are the technical arm. And there are State and local associations throughout the country. In all districts, you have a local association and you have a State association. And it's our job to help builders and help remodelers understand technology and understand where things are going.

    The Committee has been pretty supportive of having that technology initiative and keeping HUD a little bit focused on technology, the need for technology in housing. And we all understand how important housing is to the economy and what a driver it is in the economy. But there are other issues too, and I was on the internet this morning, actually checking how the Orioles did last night, and they beat Anaheim. [Laughter.]
 Page 293       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    What I looked at was the ''USA Today'' page and it had an article on there that says for most Americans, it's not easy being green, and it's not. And it says in here that housing has increased in average square footage from 1,400 square feet to 2,100 square feet. So we can look at environmental issues and we can look at energy issues, but unless we do something to make it easier on the technology side, to build more environmentally and more consciously on the environment, were still not going to get more environmentally sensitive housing, and that goes for land development, that goes for the structure itself. We have to make it easier for builders; we have to make it easier for remodelers.

    Another issue on the need for our technology initiative has to do with labor. It's great that we are in an environment right now where there is very low unemployment but the construction industry is pretty much at the bottom of that labor chain. And that means that when you look at the numbers, productivity in construction is actually going down. So we need simpler systems. That has real implications for how we build and what we do. We have very high turnover. We're attracting people to the industry at the bottom, and it's taking more hours to build a house now than it did five years ago. That's a trend that really does need to be reversed, and technology can help reverse that trend.

    The second point I wanted to make is HUD's role in this initiative. We asked the Committee last year to ask HUD to play a stronger role in building technology. HUD has responded and has accepted some leadership from an initiative called PATH, which we're very pleased to see. We have some concerns about HUD's ability really to lead Federal agencies and get everybody working in one area and building technology, and the initiative will not achieve its ultimate impact unless they can bring those other Federal agencies along. It's not going to work if everybody goes their separate way.
 Page 294       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We still feel strongly that HUD needs to be in that lead role because HUD understands the affordability issues. They understand the cost issues. But we do want to keep the emphasis on HUD that they really do need to pull the other agencies in, and the other agencies need to be cooperative.

    My last point I want to make on technology and the initiative is that, if it's going to be successful, we can't just concentrate on new housing. We add about a million units to the housing stock every year. There's a hundred million existing units out there. If we're going to have impact on housing and what it means to the country, then we can't ignore the existing housing stock. To a large extent, the initiatives that have gone forward in the past focus on new housing and not on existing housing.

    So thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Ms. Bowles, very much.

    Ms. Meek, do you have questions?

    Mrs. MEEK. I have no questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

    Mr. Frelinghuysen.

 Page 295       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On this other coordination issue, you're asking for language or direction or what?

    Ms. BOWLES. We'd be——

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. And you're not doing it alone here; I assume you're doing it in other forums?

    Ms. BOWLES. Yes, we are. I think language would be great, but there are definite areas where there is cooperation going on. FEMA, with Project Impact and using some things with bringing technology into that, I think are very strong, but there are areas where there is not good cooperation.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. As I'm sure you know, Ms. Bowles, this subcommittee has been involved in at least attempting to take some steps in the direction of dealing with existing stock. What we can do by working together—you also know full well that authorization will be very helpful for us.

    Ms. BOWLES. Sure.

    Mr. LEWIS. I know you're always working there. So thank you.

    Ms. BOWLES. Thank you.
 Page 296       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. We appreciate it.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Let's see, our next witness is Dr. Alfred Munzer, the American Lung Association. Dr. Munzer.

    Dr. MUNZER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. I can see that you've summarized your statement already. [Laughter.]

    Dr. MUNZER. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I'm a physician specializing in lung disease and past president of the American Lung Association. I'm here today to talk about the funding needs for the Environmental Protection Agency's clean air programs.
 Page 297       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Lung disease remains the third leading cause of death in the United States, and is responsible for one in seven deaths. More than 30 million Americans suffer from chronic lung disease, and lung disease has cost the U.S. economy an estimated $84 billion annually.

    Nearly all lung diseases are either caused or affected in some way by air pollution. While we've made tremendous strides in improving air quality, substantial deficits in air pollution protection continue to exist. The EPA has estimated that, as of 1996, 46 million Americans lived in areas that did not meet the current clean air standards. Tens of thousands of Americans still die prematurely each year from complications associated with exposure to air pollution, and many others have respiratory problems.

    I'm pleased that the Administration's budget requests an increase in funding for the EPA. However, in light of the mounting scientific evidence of the damage air pollution inflicts on our citizens and unfinished work of EPA for existing clean air standards, more resources are needed. And I'd like to highlight a few important clean air programs.

    As the Subcommittee no doubt is aware, the EPA has recently revised the standards for ozone and particulate matter. While much work needs to be done to implement these new standards, there is also a lot of unfinished business, and to attain these air quality standards and to appropriately plan and implement the new standards will require significantly more funds than have been requested by the Administration.

    The Administration has requested an increase in the EPA air toxics budget for fiscal year 1999. The American Lung Association agrees that there is a need for additional funds. We'd like to point out that this is a very significant program of work for the EPA, and we are concerned that, without greater additional funds, the establishment of new terms for the maximum achievable control technology rules will not proceed on schedule, and we recommend additional funds be provided.
 Page 298       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The American Lung Association is also very concerned that the Administration has made a recommendation to cut programs for other criteria pollutants. The EPA needs to provide more technical assistance to States for developing control programs for all other criteria pollutants, especially sulfur dioxide.

    The American Lung Association strongly opposed EPA's decision not to set a national standard for short-term SO2 levels. While the EPA is currently advocating that these health threats be addressed at the State and local level, its budget has failed to provide any funding to States and localities to achieve that.

    Similarly, the Clean Air Act, much work that's done under the Clean Air Act is done at the local and State level. The EPA has provided very effective leadership, but, again, there, too, we feel that there is a greater need for funding, for State air grant funding, over the level that has been recommended by the administration. We support the numbers that have been recommended by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators.

    The NIEHS Superfund basic research projects focus on the health effects of toxic chemical exposure at Superfund hazardous waste sites. The American Lung Association believes that the EPA has made an excellent investment in the NIEHS, and we recommend the transfer of $40 million from the EPA to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for toxicology research.

    Finally, we'd like to comment very briefly on environmental justice. We applaud the efforts of the EPA in this particular area to make sure that all Americans are equally protected from the dangers of air pollution, and we urge the subcommittee's full support of this initiative. The American Lung Association is pleased with the progress made at the EPA in approving our Nation's air quality, and the subcommittee should take pride in knowing that your investment in EPA is achieving results, and I hope that you will continue to provide the needed leadership and resources to protect the environment.
 Page 299       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dr. Munzer, for your testimony. We very much appreciate it.

    Ms. Meek

    Mrs. MEEK. No questions.

    Mr. LEWIS. No questions? Thank you very much.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Ann Miller, the American Association of Retired Persons. Ms. Miller.
 Page 300       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. MILLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. LEWIS. How are you?

    Ms. MILLER. I'm Ann Miller, a member of AARP board of directors. We want to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for your efforts last year regarding a section 202, elderly housing program. The Subcommittee's recommendation to preserve section 202's appropriation is a critical benchmark as the fiscal year 1998 bill worked its way through Congress.

    The demand for this specialized housing program is strong. Research indicates that eight people are waiting for every one vacancy that occurs. Features provided, such as grab bars and nonskid floors, are particularly helpful to the frail elderly and help prevent early admission into nursing homes.

    AARP is deeply concerned about the Administration's proposals regarding section 202. The $109 million recommended for new construction next year is an 83 percent reduction from the existing appropriation. To make up for this shortage, an additional $50 million in rental assistance vouchers is also requested to help the elderly find affordable housing in the private market.

    These proposals not only jeopardize new production under section 202, but also they also force the frail elderly to compete for scarce, low-income housing. While AARP recognizes the usefulness of vouchers, Mr. Chairman, we do not believe they should be used as a replacement for the production of specialized housing. The Association intends to work closely with the authorizing committee regarding any changes that may be considered to section 202. Meanwhile, we urge that, as a minimum, funds be provided next year to maintain current production levels.
 Page 301       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    We also urge at least the current funding levels for service coordinators. The need for such management staff is especially achieved in public housing projects for the elderly, which often includes substantial numbers of residents with mental and physical disabilities.

    AARP appreciates the Subcommittee's support of these critical personnel. In that regard, we note last year's directed that HUD provide a report no later than February 1998 concerning the best means of funding service coordinators. AARP believes such costs should be made part of the routine operating expenses of elderly housing projects.

    For the Congregate Housing Services Program, AARP recommends no less than the current level of funding. Many of the 4,000 frail and disabled low-income tenants presently receiving these supportive services would have to relocate to expensive nursing homes without this program.

    Finally, we recommend that sufficient funds be provided next year to continue the housing counseling program. This program provides independent counseling for elderly homeowners serving reverse mortgages. These mortgages allow them to use the equity in their homes. Given the scam artists who prey on older Americans, the need for such a program is critical.

    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on some of the administration's budget proposals. We trust our recommendations and our complete statement will receive the Subcommittee's favorable consideration. Thank you.

 Page 302       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Miller, thank you very much for your summarized testimony. The entirety will be included in the record.

    I think you already know that the two members who happened to be here at the time you were testifying were the very two members who led the battle last year relative to section 202 housing, and I've already been assured of their ongoing commitment for the coming process ahead of us.

    Ms. MILLER. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Do you have questions, by chance?

    Mrs. MEEK. No. I just want to thank you for being here.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It's a pleasure to be working with a chairman who's so enlightened and with Ms. Meek, on your behalf, and other Committee members.

    Ms. MILLER. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    [The information follows:]
    "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
 Page 303       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Dr. Jorge Sanchez, who's Chancellor of the University of Puerto Rico. Dr. Sanchez.

    Mr. SANCHEZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Jorge Sanchez, Chancellor of the University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras campus, representing Norman Maldonado, President of the University. Joining me today are Dr. Francis Schwartz, Dean of the College of Humanities and Chairman of the Advisory Board for the UPR Theater project, and Mr. Andres Gomez, a distinguished businessman in Puerto Rico who is in charge of raising money in the private sector.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you for being with us. Your statement will be included in its entirety in the record, and if you would summarize it for us for the record, we would appreciate that.

    Mr. SANCHEZ. Thank you very much.

 Page 304       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    I would like to discuss the University of Puerto Rico's request for a $5 million special Federal grant under HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program. This special purpose grant would aid efforts underway to restore one of Puerto Rico's most treasured community landmarks: the University of Puerto Rico Theater.

    Of all the historic cities in Puerto Rico, one stands out preeminently as a source of community pride: the University of Puerto Rico's grand assembly hall, El Teatro de la Universidad. Built in 1939, the theater, located on the UPR campus in Rio Piedras, was made possible by a cooperative effort between many important island and stateside figures, most notably President Franklin and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. Today the 2,088-seat theater, which is the size of the Concert Hall at the Kennedy Center, is the largest auditorium on the island. This theater has a unique and a special significance within the context of the UPR community.

    The theater is the only place available within the UPR community that provides a viable location for both public and private events. Ever cognizant of its importance to the surrounding community, the UPR has always made the theater available to community organizations for activities which require the theater's size and stature.

    However, the nearly 60 years old structure is now closed to the UPR community because of its major renovation needs. Renovation activities are being coordinated by the university, in an effort to allow the theater to continue to be of service to the Puerto Rican community.

    The renovation of the theater will coincide with current economic and community development activities already underway in Rio Piedras. Currently, the township is having to deal with the effects of a large subway development project, Train Urbano, that has temporarily placed the community under a state of duress. I have to mention at this moment that the Puerto Rican community appreciates very deeply the past contribution of the Congress to this project.
 Page 305       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    The completion of the subway will mean greater economic and community development opportunities. It will also provide for a greater number of people to come to Rio Piedras to use the UPR theater for community purposes. The UPR has already allocated $4.2 million to start the work.

    Additionally, the University is in the process of raising approximately $6 million to support the project. Mr. Gomez is in charge of that project segment, raising the funds. But additional funds are needed to reach the total cost of $15 million. Mr. Chairman, to achieve our goal, the University of Puerto Rico requests that the committee provide $5 million within your committee's appropriations bill to assist in restoring and preserving the UPR theater.

    This completes my testimony. Again, on behalf of the University of Puerto Rico, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I ask that one written statement be submitted for the record that also elicits funding for other programs that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Dr. Sanchez. Gentlemen, if you would supplement with comments that you might make for the record, we would appreciate that. We very much appreciate your being here.

    Mr. GOMEZ. We're the private sector.

 Page 306       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

    Mr. GOMEZ. I'm the Chair of the Foundation.

    Mr. LEWIS. You're the Chair of the Foundation, yes.

    Mr. GOMEZ. To raise $6 million.

    Mr. LEWIS. Good.

    Mr. GOMEZ. We're already making activities.

    Mr. LEWIS. Very good. Thank you.

    Mr. SCHWARTZ. I would like to say that the theater—as Dean of the Humanities College—is one of the great cultural institutions, I would say, of the Americas, and it has been very, very important in the promotion of democratic ideals in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Dean. We appreciate your being here.

    Any questions?

    Mrs. MEEK. No.

 Page 307       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. All right, thank you. Thank you very much.

    Mr. SANCHEZ. Thank you very much.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is the Honorable Fred Cressel, councilman from the city of Compton.

    Councilman Cressel, welcome. Your entire statement will be included in the record. If you would summarize it for us, we would appreciate it.

    Mr. CRESSEL. Okay. Chairman and the other members of the Committee, I am Fred Cressel, councilperson in the city of Compton, California. On behalf of the mayor, Omar Bradley, and the rest of the council, and our 90,000 constituents, I appreciate the opportunity to give you testimony concerning our city.
 Page 308       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    In turning to Compton's appropriations request for 1999, we are seeking funds for an initiative that would support the growth and development of our most precious asset, our children. Within this bill on the HUD community block grant account, we are requesting $2 million for the purpose of establishing a multipurpose youth development center. There's a tremendous need for such a center in the city of Compton. The city of Compton is a 10-square-mile city, and when I say that there are no multipurpose centers for youth, it's unbelievable.

    We are affected by violent crimes, particularly in the area of youth involvement activities. These activities attribute to nearly one-half of the homicides that are in the city of Compton, and this past year we had something like 72.

    It has been estimated that we have approximately 9,000 gang members or affiliates within our city. Forty percent of those are under 25 years of age. So we need to be able to break the cycle. It's one thing to tell a child that you must do the right thing, but it's something else to try to keep them busy and training them in the way that they should go.

    Given these statistics, we recognize the need to increase our youth programs and efforts in the city of Compton to cut back on the gang activity and the crime. Currently, we have programs in the city now—one, in particular, which is the YWCA. We funded them through our block grant, and they have a program that teaches intervention and the roleplaying that the children do. This program has touched this past year something like 1,000 children, and it's amazing the reports back that the teachers have on the different attitudes of the children.

 Page 309       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    What we really believe, we have one center where we could bring in law enforcement and the different social programs, and the activities that the youth have at this particular time, that we could better serve them and train them, and as I stated before, break that cycle. That's why we are asking you at this particular time to see if you could possibly help us.

    Mr. Chairman, what it boils down to, you are from the area, and you know we have problems. We know that we need someone somehow to help us break this cycle. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is our children are dying, and we need help.

    Mr. LEWIS. Councilman Cressel, I very much appreciate your taking the effort to come and give this testimony. I think you may know the last time I was in Compton was when we met at the high school, and we talked with representatives who were concerned about the FBI having a special impact upon the community.

    Mr. CRESSEL. Yes.

    Mr. LEWIS. Without any doubt, there is a great need there, and your local Member of Congress, Maxine Waters, is a very attentive member, as you know. Maxine was the voice that day.

    Mr. CRESSEL. Right. [Laughter.]

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Meek.

 Page 310       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mrs. MEEK. I can associate very well with what the councilman has said.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

    Mrs. MEEK. I think it's a very valid reason to seek funding.

    Mr. LEWIS. Yes. Thank you for being with us.

    Mr. CRESSEL. Thank you very much.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Our next witness is Lorraine Sheehan, the Chairperson of The Arc of the United States. Ms. Sheehan.

 Page 311       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Ms. SHEEHAN. Good morning.

    Mr. LEWIS. It's nice to see you.

    Ms. SHEEHAN. Thank you. Thank you. And I know you have my written testimony.

    Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate your being here.

    Ms. SHEEHAN. My name is Lorraine Sheehan, and I'm the volunteer Chair of the Government Affairs Committee of the Arc of the United States. The Arc is the largest voluntary organization in the United States devoted solely to the welfare of more than 7 million people with mental retardation in their families. We have more than 1,100 State and local chapters of the Arc nationwide.

    For two decades, the top priority of the Arc has been to make community-based services and supports, including an appropriate variety of housing options, more available to people with mental retardation. The Arc also seeks the deinstitutionalization of people with mental retardation living in large, inappropriate, and extremely expensive institutions, places where many people with mental retardation have been forced to live, often because there are no community options.

    The Arc is very grateful for the support provided by the Subcommittee over the past few years, for the recognition of the housing needs of people with disabilities and the recognition that these needs have to be considered on their own merit, and not lumped in with the needs of the elderly.
 Page 312       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I'm also—more importantly to me—I'm also the mother of John. John is 32 years old. He has mental retardation, and he's always lived at home. I am representative of hundreds of thousands of families who are afraid to die because we don't know what will happen to our sons and daughters when we are no longer around to care for them. We are fearful that they will be forced to live in large congregate settings or forced to leave family and friends or forced to live in substandard housing because there is nothing else available.

    In response to that crisis, the Arc of the United States has undertaken a campaign called—and you see our button here—''A Key of Our Own—Unlock the Waiting List.'' Nationwide, data indicates that at least 271,000 people with mental retardation are on waiting lists for community-based supports and services, including housing. We know of 50- and 60-year-old ''children'' living with 80- and 90-year-old parents. We know of people all over the country who have been waiting for 15 years or more. Some States such as California keep waiting list information. But in New Jersey, our figures show there are 4,996 people waiting for services; in Florida, 1,765 people. We believe that those numbers are an underestimation of the real need out there, and a need that will continue to grow.

    While HUD, in its 1994 report to the Congress on the worst-case housing needs, recognized the housing crisis faced by people with disabilities, they implemented the elderly only provisions that apply to assisted housing without requiring notification of the lost of assisted units, and seemed unconcerned about the impact.

    The Arc believes that people with mental retardation and other disabilities are entitled to an equitable share of Federal housing resources, and we'd like to make the following recommendations.
 Page 313       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    On section 8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance. We believe that section 8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance is the most effective tool for helping people with mental retardation with integrated life in their community. Access to section 8 assistance makes community housing affordable.

    Unfortunately, even though most people with mental retardation work and have jobs, they simply don't make very much money, and they really can't afford the market rates for housing, and they need the subsidy.

    Medicaid is a source of service funding for the support services they need, but Medicaid doesn't pay for housing. So the rental subsidy is absolutely essential.

    We seek your report for additional $40 million for section 8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance specifically for people with disabilities, and we realize that there have been a number of problems that have hindered the distribution of these funds last year, but feel that the language that the Subcommittee added should help to alleviate these problems.

    The Arc gets called everyday for housing assistance. In the last 24 hours it just so happens we received a call from California, Massachusetts, and Illinois, and these are families that are looking for housing assistance, access to housing for their sons and daughters.

    On the issue of section 811, Supportive Housing for People with Disabilities, we have a major concern that HUD's fiscal year 1999 appropriations recommendation that the $330 million for section 811 and section 202 fold into the HOME Block grant.
 Page 314       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    This proposal not only represents a major cut in funding for those programs, but is also an attack on the integrity of the program. And while we support the flexibility of the Home Program, we fear the consolidation of section 811 into home will represent a complete lost of funds currently targeted specifically for people with severe disabilities.

    We urge you to ignore the 811 recommendation. As a matter of fact, we'd like to recommend an increase for section 811 program to $250 million, based on HUD's—of found money. And you have to note that $250 million is still less than the appropriations from 1994, 1995, and 1996 in each of those years.

    We'd also seek your support for including nonprofit disability organizations as eligible applicants for tenant-based rental assistance funded with section 811. Other programs—and there's a lot of that with shelter plus care and HOPWA, so this would not be anything that's brand new. Nonprofits know people in mental retardation and other disabilities, and their housing needs, and I think we know their needs better than perhaps the Public Housing Authority.

    We thank you for your ongoing support, or your support in the past, and we appreciate your ongoing support. We've attempted to work in collaboration with HUD, but don't feel that we've been very successful. We're very concerned about the Department's continued lack of understanding of the depth and breadth of the housing crisis, faced by people with all types of disabilities, including mental retardation.

    I mean, all our folks want; they want to work, and live, and play in their communities, and housing is an essential element to make this happen. So thank you.
 Page 315       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Mr. LEWIS. Ms. Sheehan, thank you very much for your very poignant statement. I must say, this is not a problem that is new to us.

    Ms. SHEEHAN. No, I know.

    Mr. LEWIS. But, it's a very, very important problem, and your personalizing it is helpful to me.

    Ms. SHEEHAN. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mrs. Meek.

    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you. Just a personal aside.

    You've been Arc for some time?

    Ms. SHEEHAN. I've been—well, my son's 32, so I joined the Arc shortly thereafter.

    Mrs. MEEK. So you know Dr. Forman from Florida?

    Ms. SHEEHAN. I've met him. I can't say that I am a personal friend.

 Page 316       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mrs. MEEK. Thank you.

    Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you very much for being here. We're very blessed on this committee, having a chairman who not only knows these issues, but he's willing to list some of our own personal perspectives and frustrations with the HUD bureaucracy. We're still waiting for a GAO report, which is analyzing——

    Ms. SHEEHAN. Yes, we mentioned that in our recent testimony.

    Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN [continuing]. Resident issue. And it is inexcusable, even after Robert Borster's hearing, which I contributed to somewhat, we still don't have a notice for availability of funding out of HUD.

    I don't know what's going on over there, whether they're suddenly in paralysis, but it's totally inexcusable. But I think you all will generally find this committee on a bipartisan basis is indeed sympathetic and wants to be helpful.

    Ms. SHEEHAN. You know on the personal note, all of these days that it takes, and months, and years to put these things together, there are people's parents who are dying.

    Mr. LEWIS. That's correct. And that's the poignant issue that I was referring to.
 Page 317       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Ms. SHEEHAN. And it's real, believe me, it's real.

    Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much.

    Ms. SHEEHAN. Thank you.

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

Wednesday, April 22, 1998.




    Mr. LEWIS. Andrew Sperling, The Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities. I don't know how you add to that. So we can just be brief.

    Mr. SPERLING. I want to be brief as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mrs. Meek, my name is Andrew Sperling. I'm director of Public Policy for National Alliance of the Mentally Ill. I'm going to briefly summarize the statement on behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disability, which is a broad-based coalition of national disability organizations concerned with the housing opportunities for people with disabilities.
 Page 318       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Our membership includes the Paralyzed Veterans of American, The Arc, which was the previous witness, the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, the organization I work for, United Cerebral Palsy, and the National Easter Seal Society; a broad-based coalition of disability organizations. And we are obviously concerned with the housing opportunities for people with disabilities.

    In virtually every part of the United States people with disabilities struggle to find decent, safe, and affordable housing. We're troubled that for now a number of years the Department of Housing and Urban Development has failed to come up with a competence of rational policy to deal with that housing problem by people with disabilities.

    In particular, there was some failure to come up with a national policy, a national strategy to deal with the impact of elderly only designation of public and assisted housing has occurred since 1992, with enactment of Title VI of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.

    Much of the loss in this housing has already occurred particularly on the assisted housing side, since no HUD prior approval was required for a private owner of assisted housing to designate both zero efficiency apartments and one bedroom units of elderly only.

    According to recent figures that we found from the Office of Policy Development and Research at HUD, a percentage of nonelderly disabled persons in federally-supportive assisted housing has dropped from 13 to 11 percent between 1994 and 1997. During the same period the percentage of elderly people in assisted housing has grown from 42 to 47 percent.
 Page 319       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    Now we just found these figures in a much larger comprehensive report that was issued by the Office of Policy Development and Research. In this same report made no notice of this decline on the nonelderly disabled side and decline on the elderly side.

    So we're concerned that once again HUD has failed to really recognize this as a national problem that deserves a policy response at the Federal level.

    Fortunately, we've had the leadership of this subcommittee to try and turn this trend around, and to try and get alternative resources for those nonelderly disabled who have lost access to assisted housing, and public housing as well.

    On the public housing side I'll just note that in 1997 HUD approved 43 plans, designated 9,300 units as elderly owned. CCD believes that this process would not have gone as smoothly as it did were it not for the section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance that this subcommittee made available to HUD to cope with this problem. And CCD appreciates the leadership on a bipartisan basis, in its helping the subcommittee to deal with this issue.

    We'd like to respond just briefly and make a few notes on 1999 HUD budget proposal. CCD is deeply disappointed that, once again, HUD has failed to come forward with a policy response and adequate resources to deal with it. In fact, they've gone somewhat in the opposite direction, especially on the 811 program, proposing a $20 million cut and proposing to consolidate 811 and 202 into the HOME Program.

    Again, to reiterate what the prior witness told the Subcommittee, we believe this is a step in the wrong direction and a proposal that this subcommittee should reject.
 Page 320       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  

    I want to briefly just touch on a few recommendations that CCD has for the 1999 budget. In the area of section 8, Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, we would urge the Subcommittee to continue the efforts it's made over the past years, and allocating resources, section 8 tenant-based resources to deal with the loss of both public and assisted housing to elderly-owned designations.

    On section 811 urge you to reject the Administration's budget and to propose an increase for section 811. As you know, when Secretary Cuomo spoke to the Subcommittee a few weeks ago he noted upwards of $690 million that was somehow founded in the HUD budget to make up for the proposed cut that they put forward in their budget.

    We would urge that these resources be directed to make up for the cut they propose in both 202 and 811, to ensure that this important program is not cut in fiscal year 1999.

    With respect to the Office of Policy Development and Research, I noted earlier, we would urge the Subcommittee to provide some direction to PD&R, to study and undertake a more comprehensive study of the impact of designated housing, and follow up on the GAO study that the subcommittee requested last year.

    And finally, CCD would especially like to take note of Congressman Frelinghuysen from New Jersey, who, you know, Mr. Chairman, has been the leader on this issue in bringing direction to HUD to pay more attention to housing for people with disabilities. Thank you very much.

 Page 321       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 1 Of 2  
    Mr. LEWIS. We very much appreciate your testimony, and the remedy of your testimony as well. It's very helpful.

Next Hearing Segment(2)