Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I called it 1 when I handed it to them. It is the $15 million one, which is for the cooperative research program, VA cooperative research.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1 which was preprinted. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I shall not use the entire time. Every year since 1987, the VA medical and prosthetics research appropriation has been supplemented by funds transferred to the VA under a cooperative agreement between the DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The DOD-VA cooperative medical research program supports vital research covering a broad spectrum of health, science, and medical research focusing on conditions that impact both active duty and veterans. Among the programs funded are posttraumatic stress disorder research, cardiovascular fitness, combat casualty care, bone healing replacement, skin repair, vascular repair, spinal cord injury. This is an excellent program. I know times are tough, but I believe that we should be able to find the funds within the budget to fund this program at the modest level of $15 million.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, hundreds of my constituents have contacted me about the severe cuts in Medicare reimbursement for home oxygen therapy. As the House and Senate conferees deliberate over the extent of these cuts, I would like them to consider the lives of seniors receiving home oxygen services. The following letter was given to me by Laurie Keiper of Springfield, OR. To Congress and the Senate of the United States: I am an oxygen home therapy patient on 3-4 liters, 24 hours each day. I am a wife of a research vessel boatswain mate who is not home every night. He is gone most of the summer and fall. I am a care giver also, taking care of my grandson, most of his 14 years. He will be starting 9th grade in the fall. Without oxygen, I can not take care of my grandson, do for my family, or take care of myself. Instead you will pay more for child care, hospital and for nursing facility care. Most likely my 5 years of life expectancy will be shortened to 2 to 3 years or less. Oxygen is 1 percent of the total medicare budget. If you cut it by 40 percent what will it cost you? 40 percent increase in hospital stays. 40 percent increase in dependent payments, especially without parental guidance look at all the options--drugs, alcohol, runaways etc. 40 percent increase in home health and/or nursing facility payments. 40 percent increase in death benefit burial payments. It does not seem fiscally prudent to make this cut. Look for fake bills, bad doctors, people who aren't supposed to be on Medicare. When someone says they question a bill--follow up on it. Cut cost that way! Laurie Keiper.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is correct. Anybody who last year voted in the majority to not appropriate further funds for Animas-La Plata will want to vote against Fazio, I know this is a little confusing, and then vote for DeFazio-Petri, Petri-DeFazio. This obfuscation, the wording of the Fazio amendment is obfuscation. It starts out with a limitation but it limits nothing. Having the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] be the principal sponsor is even more confusing, and Members should in principle vote ``no'' on the Fazio amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Members will want to listen. This debate occurred late last night. It is confusing and they need to know what is happening. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] offered an amendment to the DeFazio-Petri amendment, which on its face would seem to restrict the expenditure of funds on the Animas-La Plata project, which a majority in this House voted last year to not fund. The Animas-La Plata project, and many of my colleagues have heard of it, is a proposed $400 million plus water project with a .36 to 1 cost- benefit ratio. It is purported to provide a settlement to tribes. It does not. It is purported to do many other things it does not. But it does spend a lot of money. What we did, Petri-DeFazio, last night was offered an amendment to say, no more funds should be expended on this project which has even been abandoned by its proponents. Its proponents have offered an alternative. The alternative has not had any hearings. It is not authorized. It has not been reviewed by the Bureau of Reclamation. That is progress. They have admitted this $440 million boondoggle should not go forward. What the Fazio amendment actually does is require that that project go forward. If read carefully, it starts out with a limitation, but what it does is limit funds to be expended for current authorized purposes, which is the $440 million Animas-La Plata project, which even the proponents now admit should not go forward. There is almost $9 million unspent at the Bureau of Reclamation, more than enough to go forward with the planning process, more than enough to develop an alternative. Surely it cannot cost more than $8 or $9 million to have a planning process and develop an alternative to this project that will meet the obligations to the tribes and be more responsible.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I'm re-introducing the Federal Facilities Clean Water Compliance Act (H.R. 2222). This legislation, which I first introduced in 1993, would subject Federal facilities to the same requirements under the Clean Water Act, as private facilities. Five years ago, Congress overwhelmingly enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act. This act has become a major enforcement tool in cleaning up waste at military and civilian sites around the Nation. But few people realize it only applies to solid wastes. Liquid discharges into surface water at Federal facilities are completely exempt from enforcement actions under the law. Under this indefensible double standard, the Federal Government gets off scot-free for the same violations for which private companies and local government are slapped with fines of $25,000 each day. At the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the Pacific Northwest, hundreds of billions of gallons of contaminated wastewater were discharged directly into the Columbia River. More than 400 billion gallons of liquid waste have been discharged into the soil, contaminating over 200 square miles of ground water with radioactive and chemical wastes. This contamination is slowing inching toward, and in some cases has already reached, the Columbia River. In December 1991, following a 3-year, billion-dollar start-up effort, the Department of Energy's [DOE] ``K'' Reactor at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina discharged thousands of curies of contaminated cooling water into the Savannah River. As a result, a number of drinking water plants, food processors, and oyster beds on the river had to be shut down until the tritium concentrations diminished. It was not the first time radioactive pollutants had been dumped into the river. DOE records indicate that more than 3.5 million curies of tritium had been released from the site since 1984. In Texas, the DOE has admitted to discharging waste from its Pantex Plant into nearby Playa Lakes. In Ohio, the DOE has dumped over one- half million pounds of uranium into the air and water from its Fernald Plant, located 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati. Drinking wells south of the Fernald plant are contaminated with radioactivity at levels as much as 250 times higher than limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. One startling fact highlighted by all of these tragic spills is that radioactive discharges from Federal facilities are not regulated under the Clean Water Act [CWA]. Neither the EPA nor individual States can set or enforce discharge limits for Federal facilities that dump nuclear waste into our streams and rivers. Although the CWA defines a pollutant as ``radioactive material'' and requires DOE and other Federal agencies to comply with the CWA in the same manner and to the same extent as private individuals, the language doesn't have much backbone. A 1976 Supreme Court decision, Train versus Colorado PIRG, ruled that the CWA's definition of pollutant does not clearly indicate whether Congress intended the CWA to apply to radioactive materials regulated under the Atomic Energy Act--namely ``source,'' ``special nuclear,'' and ``by-product'' materials. These are the chief waste discharges found in tritium and released from DOE and Department of Defense facilities. In addition, States are virtually helpless to do anything about the dumping, since States cannot assess civil penalties against the Federal Government under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Under the CWA, States may assess penalties against individuals up to $25,000 per day per violation. However, another Supreme Court decision, State of Ohio versus DOE, ruled that the DOE and other Federal agencies are immune from civil penalties under the CWA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]. This infamous decision ultimately led Congress to pass the Federal Facilities Compliance Act for RCRA in 1992. The exemption for the CWA still remains. And finally, the EPA cannot issue administrative orders or assess penalties against other agencies for violating the CWA. The EPA may currently assess penalties up to $10,000 per day against individuals. But it can only issue administrative orders against Federal facilities on a consent basis. The EPA cannot assess unwanted penalties against a Federal agency. This essentially limits the EPA's primary enforcement mechanism to voluntary compliance agreements. Congress needs to fill this regulatory void by providing independent oversight of Federal facilities that discharge radioactive waste into our waters. That authority already exists for toxics, suspended solids, and other nonradioactive pollutants under the CWA. Radioactive material should not be held to a lesser standard. In addition, we should grant EPA the same regulatory powers it now enjoys under the Clean Air Act. Under this act, the EPA can regulate radioactive air pollutants discharged from Federal facilities. There is no distinction made between pollutants; a poison is still a poison. We should eliminate the paradox under the Clean Water Act. The legislation I'm introducing today will eliminate the exemption under the CWA for radioactive discharges, empower States to assess civil penalties against Federal agencies, and authorize the EPA to issue unilateral administrative orders and assess penalties against other Federal agencies for violations of the CWA. My bill is supported by the Clean Water Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, USPIRG, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Military Production Network, Plutonium Challenge, and Heart of America Northwest. It has also been endorsed by the Oregon Department of Energy and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. At a time when the emphasis on America's nuclear weapons complex is shifting from production to cleanup, it's essential that we close these dangerous loopholes. Independent oversight of Federal facility discharges can prevent future accidents from happening and provide a means of cleanup enforcement when they do occur. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in this effort.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing some creative accounting on the other side. They are saying American families who earn $25,000 a year do not pay taxes so they should not get a child tax credit. They do pay taxes, and they should be entitled to a credit; a rookie cop, a beginning teacher. But let us talk about real creative stuff on their side. They want to tax people who do not have earnings. Graduate students would have to pay taxes on their tuition waivers under a little provision they stuck into this bill. Now if someone were a graduate student, they would give you a stipend of $300 or $400 a month, but they get a $5,000 relief from their tuition. The Republicans are saying, ``You should pay taxes on that $5,000 you don't get.'' Now what kind of opportunity is that? This is such a bad idea that the last time this provision of law expired, I sponsored legislation to fix this problem, and even Ronald Reagan agreed that we should not charge graduate students taxes on money they do not earn. But the Republicans have stuck it in this bill to help pay for tax cuts for corporations and for the wealthy. That is outrageous.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have too many miles of forest roads. There is absolutely no question, 380,000 miles is too much. But thousands of miles, though, one cannot just walk away from too many miles of road and from poorly constructed roads. We have thousands of miles of roads in need of maintenance. Unfortunately, the Forest Service often calls that reconstruction. If you take a 6-inch culvert and replace it with a 12 because it is blocked, that is not maintenance, that is reconstruction. That would be virtually eliminated by the Kennedy-Porter amendment. The Dicks amendment takes the appropriated funds down to the level requested by the Clinton-Gore administration for construction- reconstruction. I can guarantee the Members most of that budget, virtually all of that budget, is going to be used for reconstruction of roads, which is environmentally benign. Some of it will even be used for removal. I had hoped to come to the floor to add funds to maintenance and add funds to removal, but it is not allowed under the bizarre rules under which we consider appropriations bills at this point. There is a $440 million backlog, everybody admits to that, for maintenance. But they are saying, we are just cutting construction and reconstruction. No, you are not just cutting construction and reconstruction. Much of that backlog is reconstruction, and reconstruction is maintenance to the rest of us in the world, but not to the pointy heads down at the Forest Service. We need to get that work done. Reducing purchaser credits by one-half, which the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Norm Dicks, does with this amendment, by 50 percent according to the Clinton administration, I checked with them on this, will eliminate all new road building, including any roads into roadless areas, under the purchaser credit program. That is the way they would use that reduction. What will the other $25 million go to? It will go to maintenance, which the Forest Service calls reconstruction. It will go to Aufderheide Drive, the most heavily used recreational road in my district in the Willamette National Forest. It will go to other critical roads that have been identified in the President's forest plan as needing immediate removal, reconstruction, repair, or upgrading, because they present dangers to watersheds and fish. That is what this is all about. It is well-intentioned on the part of these gentlemen, and I do not want to subsidize the industry. No one can accuse me of that. So what, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Norm Dicks, is proposing will eliminate the roads into the roadless areas, it will eliminate the new road construction under purchaser credits. If you buy into the argument by eliminating these monies, you do that. You cannot have the language in the bill. That is not allowed. And it will put enough money back into the construction and reconstruction program to do what the Clinton administration wants to do, to reconstruct problem roads across western Oregon, Washington, the western United States, that they have identified are in need of immediate upgrade, immediate maintenance, and they unfortunately call reconstruction. What we really need is to have a debate where we make a more rational forest policy in this country and a more rational roads policy at the Forest Service, in the authorization committees, and bring that to the floor to the debate, as opposed to what we are doing here tonight, because we cannot get at the real problem.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I am not a member of the committee. I wish to speak on this. How can I be assured, since I am not a member of the committee, and I do not know how many members of the committee are going to rise, that I will be allocated any time during that hour? There are many other members on both sides of the issue who wish to speak.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. And I would hope it passes.

Mr. DeFAZIO. We could transfer from one account to another since we do not know what is in the accounts?

Mr. DeFAZIO. But even if we wanted to beef up those portions of the budget, we could not do that here on the floor?

Mr. DeFAZIO. We do not know.

Mr. DeFAZIO. How much of this budget is spent on those particular terrorist threats?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I do want to see the special room sometime, but I do not want to look at any of the documents in there.

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman wants to tie my tongue.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Again the dilemma we have here, and I do not like across-the-board cuts, is we are not given an option. Yes, I can go to the room upstairs. The gentleman can show me the individual budgets of the individual agencies, but I cannot come down here to the floor and use that information in any way. I cannot come down here and say, ``Well, the National Reconnaissance Office is up by $1 billion, I want to cut $500 million there because they are spending it on this particular satellite that I do not think is helpful.'' I can do none of that on the floor. I can go up there and be imbued with information that will tie my hands and my tongue if I come to the floor. I could not talk about the amount of money here if I had been up there to review the budget. I can only talk about it because I read it in the New York Times. I know there will be an amendment later to reveal the total amount of money spent, and I would hope the gentleman would support that and I hope this gentleman will support that.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DeFAZIO. But again we cannot reveal the number.