Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule, to make brief comments in support of the energy and water bill, and to make a few comments on security issues and the current oil crisis. Mr. Speaker, our committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard), rightly has addressed the critical issues of security at our Nation's nuclear labs by providing an additional $331 million for the National Nuclear Security Administration, for a total of over $6 billion. Mr. Speaker, the problem of security at our national labs is one of leadership, not of resources. The security at our national labs, or at least some of our labs, has not just been compromised, it has been violated. It is time for Secretary Richardson to accept the responsibility for the ongoing security violations and to take whatever actions are necessary to restore the faith of the American people in their ability to secure our Nation's nuclear secrets. Furthermore, even with the strong congressional support from our committee, the leadership of the Department of Energy has been lacking, particularly in regard to developing a comprehensive energy strategy. Getting as much oil as we can for as little as we can is not energy policy. Recent oil prices clearly show that the Secretary has once again been negligent. One of the core missions of the Department of Energy, and I quote, is ``to develop and implement a national energy policy.'' Congress has provided the necessary resources, and the increased funding for the Department contained in this bill needs to be spent wisely and with strict accountability so that a workable energy strategy can be developed to address exorbitant energy costs. On the issue of national security, on the issue of an energy policy, the Secretary needs to do better.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Andrews amendment. Quite frankly, I make no apologies for fighting for our State, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and my State and our priorities. I do so within the spending restraints of the Balanced Budget, and I have looked and investigated closely the actual nature of each of these types of projects in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. Let me say I do not and have not supported any project in New Jersey that would harm my State's environment. The Delaware Deepening project meets all environmental standards and has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Since some groups in the sponsor have raised the prospect that this project is nonenvironmently justified, I decided to contact the Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Office, the agency required under the Federal law to review the project. Mr. Chairman, I asked if the EPA had any outstanding environmental concerns over the deepening of the Delaware River. The EPA's response was no. I have also heard the argument that the State of New Jersey is opposed to the project. Let me state very clearly to all Members that the State of New Jersey supports the project and Governor Whitman has written to me to express her support. She writes, and I quote her letter of June 5, ``given the importance of this project to New Jersey's economy and Pennsylvania's willingness to work with us to ensure that they accept a more equitable share of the dredged materials, I support Congress funding this project in the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.'' In addition to Governor Whitman, our senior senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, supports this project. Dredging on the Delaware River is not new. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has dredged the river every year for generations. The shorelines of both sides of the river and bay contain dirt and sand removed from the river. None of the dire environmental consequences predicted as a result of the project have ever occurred. My colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has repeatedly stated in letters and other things that the dirt and sand taken from the Delaware River is dangerous. It is not. The EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the New Jersey DEP, the Pennsylvania DER have studied the project. Surely one of these agencies after years of review would have raised some objection. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment most strongly.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have a system of patents for a reason, to protect intellectual property rights of the people who create new inventions and products, as well as protect the efficacy of the actual product. And the efficacy of drug products and medicines are important. It is all about safeguarding patients, patients around the world. Our U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, has been pursuing the enforcement of U.S. patent laws in virtually every international market and she has done so effectively. As the U.S. representative for the fair treatment of U.S. products anywhere and everywhere in the world, this is her charge. This amendment basically tells that representative to stop doing her job. That is not only wrong, it is dangerous. I know that the intent of the gentleman is to help those suffering from horrendous diseases, such as AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other places, by guaranteeing access to prescription medicine at the cheapest cost. But, with all due respect to the gentleman, this is not the way to achieve his goal and he will not likely achieve his goal.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stearns amendment. Far too often, Federal agencies simply forget whom they are here to serve--the people. The Federal Communications Commission's Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs employs approximately 13 people at a cost of almost $950,000 dollars to answer requests and inquiries and they do a poor job. Mr. Chairman, why does it take 17 people in the Office of Media Relations to inform the press and the public of the FCC's actions--at a cost to the taxpayer of over $1 million dollars? Why does it take 13 people from the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs to respond to 535 Senators and Members of Congress when I have 6 people on my staff to answer the inquiries from 600,000 of my constituents? Mr. Chairman, let me give you one example of a situation I encountered with the Federal Communications Commission's poor record of ``customer service.'' In November of 1999, I wrote to the Chairman of the FCC seeking a response to an issue hundreds of my constituents had written to me about. Despite several follow-up letters to Chairman Kennard, I had to send yet another letter in April and had my office place several telephone calls inquiring to the status of the response to my inquiry--now five months old. Mr. Chairman, it is an outrage that it would take the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission almost five months to respond to my constituents. This agency has absolutely no accountability to the taxpayers! It is clear how much waste is taking place at this agency. Mr. Chairman, it is about time for the Federal Communications Commission to be responsible to the people they serve. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) as a cosponsor of H.R. 4655, my bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As one of the 325 Members who could have all or part of our congressional districts included in the nonattainment areas under the EPA's 8-hour ozone standard, I want my constituents, especially seniors, children and those with asthma, to have cleaner air sooner rather than later. In New Jersey, the months from April to October are not only the summer season, but they are also known as the ozone season. During this period, the Garden State will see an average of 240,000 asthma attacks; 2,000 related hospital admissions; and 6,000 related emergency room visits. These statistics are from the New Jersey Department of Health. The 8-hour standard is 10 percent more stringent than the current 1- hour standard and incorporates larger geographic areas. This forces up- wind polluting States, such as those in the Midwest, to do more of their fair share to help down-wind receiving States, such as mine, come into compliance. EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act should go forward. I urge that the amendment be rejected.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there are many Federal agencies that compete for the VA-HUD budget allocation: the Veterans Administration, housing and urban development, Environmental Protection Agency, and other independent agencies such as the National Science Foundation. All of us here, Republican or Democrat, support the National Science Foundation because we know that much of their work, the greatest portion of their work, in fact, goes into university-based research. That support is bipartisan and nonpartisan, in fact. Further, this bill under discussion clearly reinforces the commitment of this Congress to scientific research as we are aware of the National Science Foundation marks its 50th anniversary this year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or 4.3 percent over last year. We wish it could be more. It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4 billion level. With only a small portion of Federal spending, this agency has been, has had a powerful impact on national science and engineering in most every State and institution of higher learning. Every dollar invested in the National Science Foundation returns manyfold its worth in economic growth. I note that 5 years ago, the National Science Foundation budget was $3.27 billion in the fiscal year 1997, and 3 years ago, the National Science Foundation budget had climbed to $3.6 billion in 1999. This year's increased National Science Foundation appropriation for the fiscal year 2000 continues us in the right direction. The remarkable discoveries mentioned by the gentleman from Wisconsin will continue with this allocation, and with more money, we can find it as this bill goes to conference.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, which I offer with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and many others. Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the VA from using the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation formula, known as VERA, to allocate funding to 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks, known as VISNs, throughout the country. Instead, this amendment would send the VA back to the drawing board to develop a formula which would be truly equitable and which would distribute funding across the Nation, so that all of our veterans, regardless of where they live, would be provided with the same access to medical care based on need. Under the current formula, VISN 3, which includes New York and New Jersey, has seen its funding cut by over 66 percent since 1997. The funding shortfall has hampered VISN 3's ability to provide a full range of medical services to veterans. For example, look at the VA's VERA-based allocation of funding for hepatitis C testing and treatment. The fiscal year 2000 budget provided $190 million. The fiscal year 2001 budget under consideration today would increase that amount to $340 million. Hepatitis C is a growing problem in our Nation, especially among Viet Nam-era veterans. It is approaching epidemic proportions in VISN 3 in New York and New Jersey, where 26 percent of all veterans tested for hepatitis C have tested positive. The VISN needs approximately $10 million this year just to provide hepatitis C treatment to veterans who test positive for the virus and additional funding to pay for testing, which can cost between $50 and $200 per person. In March, VA Secretary Togo West told the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Committee on Appropriations that he had not spent all of the hepatitis C money in the fiscal year 2000 budget because the demand was not there. Because this funding is allocated under the VERA formula, our area has found itself in need of at least an additional $22 million to pay for hepatitis C testing and treatment this year. These are for veterans in need. Mr. Chairman, because of the skewed distribution of funding under VERA, under that formula, we are faced with a system of winners and losers. When it comes to providing health care for veterans, there should be no winners and losers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the dean of the New York Congressional Delegation. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Much has been said and made about the housing vouchers, and that our bill turns its back on those most in need. However, it is not this bill but the Department of Housing and Urban Development itself which has, through its own dinosaur-like behavior, contributed to the very housing crisis that some have ascribed and attributed to Congress. HUD has, by any admission through our public hearings, been seen to be incredibly slow in awarding Section 8 vouchers. This results in the recapture that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) alluded to of funds because HUD does not spend them fast enough on the programs for which they were intended by Congress. The recapture would be equivalent to about 237,000 vouchers, because they do not spend down the money quickly enough. With our tight budget allocation today, it makes no sense to fund a richer program that HUD has shown it simply cannot deliver. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the spend-out rate at an extremely low 6 percent to begin with. Now the spend-out rate is projected by the CBO at an unbelievably low 1 percent. This inefficiency is unacceptable; even more unacceptable given the fact that Secretary Cuomo has the use of his community builders to expedite the process and overcome bureaucratic hurdles within this huge bureaucracy. HUD's policy should be, Mr. Chairman, to get the programs to the people as soon as possible. We have the same situation where fiscal year 1998 funds did not reach the street until October of 1999. Congress provided 50,000 vouchers in fiscal year 1999 and 60,000 vouchers in fiscal year 2000. We should not double the amount of vouchers, as some have suggested, when HUD does not award the ones already in the pipeline. The bill before us includes language, thank goodness, to push HUD to do a better job, to move this huge bureaucratic dinosaur to do the job for the people who need public housing. This bill also provides sufficient money to renew all expiring Section 8 contracts at a 100 percent rate, and to provide relocation assistance at the requested funding level. HUD should administer the current programs with a higher degree of efficiency before Congress expands it. I oppose the amendment and support the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to increase funds for the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. OFHEO has an important job, we admit, doing regulatory oversight to ensure the safety and soundness of the two largest government-sponsored enterprises: Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Just because the funds for OFHEO come from assessments on Fannie and Freddie does not mean that the Committee on Appropriations will roll over and give them anything they want. The subcommittee requested an adequate justification to support the whopping 50 percent increase in funds they requested and the 40 percent increase in personnel as requested by the President. OFHEO never responded to our requests for their budgets' justification. Yet the committee ended up providing the still generous 15 percent in increased funds contained in this bill. Fifteen percent is a respectable amount, given that so many of our accounts had to be level funded due to the tight budget allocation. Further, there is only so much of an increase an agency can absorb effectively in one year. The Committee on Appropriations reported dollar figure is based on merit and not on any of the outside forces that some have alluded to. I urge rejection of the amendment and support of the bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield, only to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am yielding to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, once again, I come to the floor to recognize the great success of strong local school systems working with dedicated parents and teachers. I rise today to congratulate and honor 47 outstanding high school artists from the 11th Congressional District of New Jersey. Each of these talented students participated in the Annual Congressional Arts Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery,'' sponsored by Schering-Plough Corporation. They were recently honored at a reception and exhibit. Their works are exceptional. Mr. Speaker, I would like to list each of the students, their high schools, and their contest entries, for the official record. Sarah Louise Podron, Bayley Ellard High School, The Open Window. Alexis Perry, Bayley Ellard High School, Window of My Soul. Ed Steiner, Boonton High School, Great Grandfather. Eileen Mondino, Boonton High School, Tony. Samanatha Fuess, Boonton High School, The Duck Shot. Jenny Blankenship, Boonton High School, Untitled. Allyson Wood, Dover High School, Metamorphosis. Mike Cicchetti, Dover High School, Still Life. Jeff Albeck, Dover High School, Charles in Charge. Jee Hae Choe, Dover High School, Untitled. Andrew Racz, Hanover Park High School, Self Portrait. Jean Guzzi, Hanover Park High School, Lost. Amy Chang, Hanover Park High School, Self Portrait--Amy. Stephanie Fertinel, Hanover Park High School, Reflections. Jessica Posio, Livingston High School, Dreamer. Tricia Lin, Livingston High School, Untitled. Alexandra Weeks, Madison High School, City. Lynette Murphy, Madison High School, Vice Versa. Michael Sutherland, Madison High School, Weather. Juyoun Lee, Madison High School, Season. Christopher Butler, Matheny School and Hospital, Untitled. Faith Stolz, Matheny School and Hospital, Untitled. Diana Viulante, Montville High School, Flying. Jimin Oh, Montville High School, Self Portrait. Elizabeth Mayer, Montville High School, Wishing for Winter. Matal Usefi, Montville High School, Primal Instincts. Matthew Schwartz, Morris Hills High School, Self Portrait. Brooke Purpura, Morris Knolls High School, Self Portrait. John Fisher, Morris Knolls High School, Self Portrait. Marion Bezars, Jr., Morris Knolls High School, Pondering. Kristen Reilly, Mt. Olive High School, Stamped in Stone. Jonathan Rehm, Mt. Olive High School, Blind Faith. Rachel Regina, Mt. Olive High School, Phil. Tanya Maddaloni, Mt. Olive High School, Creation. Steven Ehrenkrantz, Randolph High School, Untitled. Alton Wilky, Randolph High School, Whai. Francesca Oliveria, Randolph High School, Immanis. Ashleyh Waddington, Randolph High School, Untitled. Shirley Lewlowicz, West Essex High School, Untitled. Rachel Glaser, West Essex Senior High School, Untitled. Joseph Morelli, West Essex Senior High School, Untitled. Kate O'Donnell, West Essex Senior High School, Irish Heritage. Austyn Stevens, West Morris High School, Diva. Kerry French, West Morris Mendham High School, Kassie. Meghan Buckner, West Morris Mendham High School, Ashley. Erin Bollinger, West Morris Mendham High School, Self Portrait. Emily Dimiero, West Morris Mendham High School, Facade. As you know, Mr. Speaker, each year the winner of the competition will have the opportunity to travel to Washington D.C. to meet Congressional Leaders and to mount his or her artwork in a special corridor of the U.S. Capitol along with winners from across the country. This year, first place went to John Fisher of Morris Knolls High School. Second place went to Emily Dimiero of West Morris Mendham High School. Rachel Regina of Mt. Olive High School was awarded third place. In addition, seven other submissions received honorable mention by the judges, Kerry French, Erin Bollinger, Jimin Oh, Rachel Glaser, Jenny Blankenship, Juyoun Lee and Mario Bezars, Jr. Indeed, all of these young artists are winners, and we should be proud of their achievements so early in life.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Under the leadership of the gentleman New York (Mr. Walsh), and our ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), our subcommittee has produced an excellent bill. I compliment them both. I also compliment the chairman for restructuring our hearing process to maximize information gathering and to actually get answers to serious housing, environmental, scientific and medical questions that fall within the purview of HUD, the EPA, the National Science Foundation and NASA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among a number of Federal agencies under our committee's jurisdiction. Our subcommittee chair has faced a difficult task in balancing so many national and regional priorities within a limited budget allocation. This bill contains $76.4 billion in discretionary funds, $4.9 billion above last year's $7.1 billion level. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that $76.9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2000 just to fund a freeze from last year. That said, the chairman has done a good job of keeping our heads above water while living within our means. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the largest Federal departments, with over 10,400 employees, receives an increase of $4 billion over last year. Virtually all of this increase goes to fully fund section 8 renewals and tenant protections, which are important. Level funded is section 202 housing for the elderly and section 811 housing for individuals with disabilities, public housing operating subsidies, homeless assistance grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, known as HOPA. This committee has been especially interested in acting on behalf of housing for people with disabilities. For the past 4 years, this committee has created a section 8 disabilities set-aside to earmark some of those funds to help individuals with disabilities find suitable housing. This year, for the first time, the President finally agreed with our committee on the importance of this particular disabilities set-aside. Our bill contains the $25 million to fund the President's long overdue request for this purpose. Also, under HUD, this bill contains language mandating that 75 percent of the section 811 disabled housing program funds be spent on new construction. There is simply an insufficient supply of housing available for individuals with disabilities; therefore, we need to emphasize housing production over rental assistance. We reject the administration's proposal to drop the mix to 50-50, and this bill insists that 75 percent of the funds go towards building new housing units. The Environmental Protection Agency is level funded at the administration's budget request of $7.2 billion. Nevertheless, the clean water State revolving funds are increased by $400 million over the President's level, for a total of $1.2 billion, because this remains a top environmental goal of many towns and cities. State air grants, safe drinking water, State revolving funds and research are all increased over last year's amounts as well. So there are increases. The committee has matched the President's request of $1.2 billion for the Superfund program, an increase of $2.5 million over last year. Superfund was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials in many waste sites around the country that have been abandoned. As a Member of Congress, I have the dubious distinction of having more of these sites on a national priority listed in my congressional district than any other. I am glad today that this program continues to emphasize remediation rather than litigation, cleanups instead of costly, protracted lawsuits. The EPA section of this bill also seeks to address the serious problems which we have discussed in our public hearing caused by the use of the gasoline additive known as MTBE. During our hearings in March with EPA Administrator Carol Browner, I raised the growing problems associated with this gasoline additive. While MTBE is used in an effort to reduce fuel emissions and meet Federal clean air standards, the EPA was well aware early on it had begun to contaminate water supplies throughout our country. California has at least 10,000 contaminated sites, New York 1,500, New Jersey nearly 500, and many communities in my district are affected adversely. As a result of our March hearing, Administrator Browner finally took steps to phase out the use of MTBE. This bill builds upon that decision by providing $9 million for efforts to correct leaking underground storage tank problems associated with this additive. Further, this bill reinforces the commitment of this committee and Congress to scientific research. I am referring particularly to the National Science Foundation, which marks our 50th anniversary this year. It is funded at a record $4.1 billion. This is an increase of $167 million, or a 4.3 percent increase, over last year. It is also the first time funds for this agency have topped the $4- billion level, with only a small portion to Federal spending. This agency has been a powerful positive effect or change in terms of national science and engineering in every State and institution of higher learning. Every dollar invested in the NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth. I support this budget. I support the NSF. And I support the work of the committee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the ranking member and the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in rising in opposition to this amendment, and I would like to clarify some misconceptions about the language its sponsors are attempting to remove from our bill. Contrary to some of the Dear Colleagues and other letters that have been circulated, the language in the VA-HUD bill does one thing, it prevents the VA from taking funding from the veterans' medical care account to pay for lawsuits against tobacco companies. Our committee language does not, I emphasize, does not prevent the VA from giving the Justice Department money to pursue their lawsuit, so the gentleman's amendment is not necessary. Frankly, I am no friend of tobacco, of the industry, but we have not worked so hard on our committee in a bipartisan way to increase the medical accounts over the past 4 years and the VA's budget on behalf of our veterans to see the administration and the Department of Justice push our veterans out of the way so they can flog tobacco companies using funding from this and other appropriations bills. The statistics are grim. An estimated 30,000 veterans from the World War II era are dying each month. These men and women need medical care today, not 3 or 4 years down the road. That is why none of this critical funding should be diverted from their medical care, care that they have more than earned and deserve. Too much has been taken away from our veterans already to deal them this additional blow. For those who might forget or wish to forget, the TEA-21 bill signed by the President in 1998 and sponsored by a majority in this Chamber, and supported by them, cut veterans' disability payments for smoking- related illnesses by $14.4 billion to pay for highways and other important transportation projects. I voted against this bill because that $15.4 billion should have been spent on compensating veterans with tobacco-related illnesses, or redirecting it into paying for veterans' medical care for veterans with smoking-related illnesses, as well as other veterans, instead of paving more highways and building more roads and taking care of more worthwhile projects. Now, the administration is proposing to take $4 million from the fiscal year 2001 allocation for veterans' medical care accounts to pay the Justice Department's legal expenses to sue tobacco companies. Some have argued to me that $4 million is a small amount of money and its diversion makes little difference overall to veterans' medical care. But I can tell the Members, $4 million would provide for veterans in my district a lot of necessary things related to Hepatitis C, related to prescription drugs. Our committee language already allows the VA to use funding from somewhere else within its budget, just not from an account that directly pays for veterans' medical care. There are a number of other accounts within the Department of Justice that the VA can take money from, including departmental administration, general operating expenses, medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses, construction, major and minor projects, other types of grants. These accounts total over $1.36 billion, and the VA cannot find $4 million from those accounts to pay for this lawsuit? That is incredible. The Secretary should cut his own budget and reduce administrative overhead before he raids the veterans' medical care accounts to comply with White House directives. The VA should use every dollar appropriated for veterans' medical care to provide for the men and women who fought our wars, and to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' I do not oppose lawsuits against the tobacco industry. I certainly do not receive any financial contributions from them. I do oppose the use of veterans' medical care dollars to pay for the Justice Department's lawsuit. In closing, let me repeat that this language does not prohibit the VA from participating in the lawsuit. Our committee language does protect veterans' medical care dollars to make sure they are spent today for the reason they were intended, to provide for the 25 million men and women in this country who bore the cost of battle and who have fought to defend our Nation's freedom.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to point out, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has pointed out in previous remarks, that we have increased funding for veterans medical care by $1.3 billion. I may point out, it took the President 4 years to realize what Members of this body, both Democrats and Republicans, have realized all along, that funding for veterans medical care must be increased, and we have done it. When we combine that with last year's historic increase, this Congress will have provided $3 billion more for veterans medical care in the last 2 years. Mr. Chairman, we are keeping our promise. Unlike the President's budget, all funds that are collected by the VA from third-party insurers and copayments will stay according to our budget within the VA system. The President's budget proposed that the first $350 million collected as a result of changes under the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act signed into law and passed last year be returned to the Treasury, not to the Veterans Administration. This bill requires that those outside collections be retained by the VA and to be used for improving veterans' medical care. This is a responsible budget, because it better addresses also, Mr. Chairman, the growing and serious problem of hepatitis C among veterans. According to the Centers for Disease Control, this disease of the liver, if untreated, can lead to chronic liver disease and even liver failure. The hepatitis C virus affects a disproportionately high number of veterans compared to the general population, particularly those with the Vietnam-Era part of our history. In the fiscal year 2000 bill, Congress provided $190 million for testing and treatment of hepatitis C in our bill; the one under discussion today would increase that amount to $340 million. However, during our committee's hearing with the VA in March, Secretary Togo West stated that the Department would be unable to spend all the fiscal year 2000 hepatitis C testing and treatment funds, because the demand was not there. Frankly, too many of us on the committee, the committee's Secretary statement was puzzling and, in fact, contrary to a great deal of known information about this health crisis from the CDC, as well as from the VA's own data. In a 1-day random hepatitis screening done by the VA in March of 1999, it showed 6 percent of Veterans tested nationally that tested positive for hepatitis C virus compared to less than 2 percent of the general population. In my area, in New York and in New Jersey, the infection rate from that 1-day test was over 12 percent, twice the national average. The numbers have not improved since then, but this budget increases money for hepatitis C testing. It increases money for medical care, and this is a budget that points us in the right direction.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I discussed privately with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and let me reemphasize what the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) has had. If the gentleman from California had taken it from some other section other than the medical care account, certainly I think the large majority of us would be 100 percent behind him. Many who support the Waxman amendment claim that this language or rider in the VA-HUD bill would stop the lawsuit from going forward. None of us have any problem with the lawsuit going forward. Some may, but certainly not yours truly. There is no language in the VA-HUD bill that prevents the Justice Department's lawsuit against the tobacco industry from going forward. The language prevents the VA from using the money from the veterans medical care account, it does not prevent the VA from taking money from another account in this bill, not the medical care account. That is not to be used directly to provide medical care to veterans. This amendment claims that the bill provides special protections of the tobacco industry. It does not. But it does provide special protection to veterans, making sure that money intended for their medical care is used to pay for doctors' visits, inpatient treatment for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder, fulfilling of prescriptions, hepatitis C testing and treatment, and other critical health needs. Much has been made of letters from veterans organizations before this body this evening. I am a member of the American Legion. I am a member of the VFW. I have a letter here from the American Legion which I would like to introduce into the debate since it has been referenced that somehow they are supporting the Waxman amendment. This is dated June 15. This is from the American Legion, mind you, and I quote, ``Taking health care dollars from the VA to pay for litigation is counterproductive, especially with the growing demand for services by the aging veterans population.'' Continuing under quotation marks, ``The American Legion strongly encourages Congress to identify $4 million in the projected surplus to be earmarked in the Department of Justice's appropriation bill to pay for the VA's share of litigation. VA funding should be used for its intended purposes, and that is why we oppose the Waxman amendment.'' I get no support from tobacco. I hate tobacco. Tobacco kills. But we do not need to take money away from veterans' medical care to pay for this litigation. Within the Department of Justice, it is interesting, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Justice has an overall budget of about $20 billion. There are 2,374 general authorized attorneys, tax, civil, et cetera; 351 antitrust; U.S. attorneys, 4,900; 229 trustees; 7,861 attorneys in the Department of Justice. There are enough attorneys and there is enough money in the Justice Department to fund this lawsuit. They do not need to take it away from veterans medical care.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the work of her committee on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for all of his hard work. This is an excellent bill for veterans, as is the rule, because it provides an increase of $1.3 billion for veterans medical care next year. It also matches the President's budget request for veterans medical research and for the program that funds construction of State nursing homes. And it makes sure that all veterans medical care dollars that are collected stay within the VA. The President's budget proposed returning, Madam Speaker, $350 million in third-party payments to the Treasury. Under our bill, every dollar collected stays within the VA system. Contrary to what we may be hearing, there is no scheme in this bill to stop this tobacco lawsuit from going forward. This bill prevents the VA from diverting veterans medical care dollars from being used to pay for this lawsuit. Whatever the merits of the lawsuit, the money should not come from veterans medical care. The money can come from any other VA account, including general operating and administrative expenses. The Secretary should cut his own budget if he knew what was in it and reduce administrative overhead and not raid the veterans medical care accounts. This is a good bill for housing as well, especially for individuals with disabilities which has been a particular concern of members on both sides of the aisle on the committee. In the past, Congress has created a section 8 disability set-aside to earmark funds within this larger account to help individuals with disabilities find suitable housing. This year the President finally recognized the importance of this set-aside. It took a while. This bill meets his request to provide $25 million specifically for that purpose. Further, this bill again contains important language regarding section 811 housing for tenant-based rental assistance for individuals with disabilities. Since there is an insufficient supply of available, suitable housing, this bill requires HUD to spend 75 percent of its fiscal year 2001 funds to build new housing units for individuals with disabilities. This is a good bill, also, for protecting the environment. This bill provides an increase in funding for the Superfund hazardous waste cleanup program. The $1.22 billion for the Superfund is an increase of $2.5 million over the previous year's level. The Superfund program was established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials, spills and dangerous, uncontrolled and/or abandoned waste sites. Too much money has been spent on litigation, and now we are spending more on remediation. Also, this bill provides $79 million for the leaking underground storage tank, or LUST program, to clean up hazardous wastes that have leaked from underground storage facilities. This is $9 million over last year's level, and $9 million is to be used to mitigate the problems with the underground storage tanks caused by the presence of NTBE in our fuel supplies, another disaster out of the Environmental Protection Agency. Finally, this is a good bill for scientific research, specifically for the National Science Foundation, which marks its 50th anniversary this year. With a small portion of Federal spending, this agency has had a powerful impact on national science and engineering. Every dollar invested in NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth. The NSF traditionally receives high marks for efficiency; less than 4 percent of that agency's budget is spent on administration and management. To meet these goals in the NSF this year, the bill provides a record $4 billion for the National Science Foundation, a $152 million increase over last year. This is a good rule. It is a good bill. It deserves our support.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 101, commemorating the 225th birthday of the United States Army. As a proud supporter of the Army, of its men and women in uniform as well as the many civilian employees who work alongside them, I am pleased that we are taking time today to recognize their contributions to our national security. Since the War of Independence was fought to first gain our nation's liberty, the Army has been there to protect and defend that freedom, and to fight to extend that right to other nations as well. The Army reinforced our fledgling country's freedom during the War of 1812, fought with valor in the Civil War, and charged up San Juan Hill with Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders. The Army fought in the trenches of Europe in the ``War to End All Wars,'' then returned to storm the beaches of Normandy a generation later. The Army fought the ``Cold Wars'' of Korea and Vietnam, and the conflicts and insurgencies that followed, and stormed the deserts of Kuwait. And, every day, our Army guards our borders and keeps our nation strong and secure. Only recently have we begun to learn some of the stories of the brave men and women who defended our nation's freedom during World War II because of movies like ``Saving Private Ryan,'' books such as ``Citizen Soldier,'' and the recent opening of the D-Day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. They are the stories of the soldiers who watched the shrapnel ``come down like rain'' in the Hurtgen Forest in Germany, and who ``grew up overnight'' on the beaches of Normandy. But we should not forget the stories of the other men and women who served in the Army, including the estimated 480,000 who wear the uniform today. Every day these men and women put their lives on the line for us, asking little in return. It is because of these men and women, and the countless ones who served before them, that we enjoy the many benefits of freedom and liberty today. And we should take the opportunity to thank them for their service and dedication to our nation. But I also want to take time today to recognize the contributions of one Army base in my district, Picatinny Arsenal, which pre-dates our Army! The ``Middle Forge'' that was established at the base of Picatinny Peak in 1749 evolved into an iron works which provided cannon shot, bar iron, shovels and axes for General George Washington's Revolutionary Army. Designated as the Picatinny Powder Depot in 1880 by the War Department, the installation began producing explosives. During World War I, Picatinny produced everything from rifle ammunition to large caliber Navy projectiles. The ``modern'' facility dates back to a massive explosion at Picatinny in 1926, after which the arsenal was rebuilt and expanded. As a result, during World War II, the government turned to Picatinny and its nearly 20,000 military and civilian employees to produce bombs, explosives, fuzes, artillery ammunition and other critical ordinance needed to support our forces who were fighting for freedom around the world. And, ultimately, the Army consolidated all weapons system research at Picatinny in 1977. Today, Picatinny is a premier research and development facility which has produced the Crusader Self-Propelled Howitzer, the Lightweight 155mm Towed Howitzer, the Objective Individual Combat and Crew Served Weapons, the Precision Guided Mortar Munition and the Wide Area Munition. In addition, Picatinny's researchers have developed fuzes, pyrotechnics and non-lethal systems in use by the Army and other services as well. Despite reductions in personnel, and funding, to Army R&D installations across the country, Picatinny Arsenal continues to excel and exceed all expectations. Last month, I was honored to attend a ceremony at the Pentagon where Picatinny Arsenal was presented with this year's Commander in Chief's Award for Installation Excellence. This is an elite honor, bestowed upon the top Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine installations in the nation, and Picatinny Arsenal just received that award for the second time in five years! The men and women of Picatinny Arsenal are a unique and special group, military and civilians alike. Year after year, as we have seen overall defense spending decrease, they have been asked to do more with less, and have risen to the challenge by continuing to excel at their missions. The ammunition and weapons systems developed at Picatinny Arsenal are used by every soldier in the Army, every day. Many of the new technologies engineered at Picatinny have no equal in the world. By winning this award, Picatinny has proven to all what I have long known--that they are the best of the best in the Army. And today, I pay tribute to those men and women, and to all they have accomplished behind the scenes to secure our nation's liberty. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to H.J. Res. 101, and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to report on a visit I made in April of this year to two of the U.S. Army's installations, one in California and the other in Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the upper Mojave Desert is a long way from Morristown. Frankly, when you think of southern California and the desert, you conjure up thoughts of oppressive heat, scorching sun and scorpions underfoot. During the Congressional Easter ``recess,'' I spent several days visiting Fort Irwin, home of the National Training Center and the U.S. Army's premier field combat training facility. There is nothing like it anywhere in the world, according to what I heard and saw during my visit. For almost two years now, I have had added to my assignment on the House Appropriations Committee, a seat on the Subcommittee on Defense, which includes budget jurisdiction over all of our nation's branches of the Armed Services and our national intelligence agencies. Whenever possible, I try to visit military installations, bases and especially our young troops in the field. After all, these young men and women need to know that Members of Congress appreciate what they do and that we are committed to their safety, proper training, and the acquisition of the best equipment and technology available. I saw firsthand the battlefield realism that the National Training Center provides. That location in the desert combines the scope, scale, and intensity of effort that past and future wars have provided. Take for example, the Persian Gulf War. On the morning of February 24, 1991, combat-ready U.S. military forces launched the land phase of the Persian Gulf War with the objective of removing Iraqi forces from the Republic of Kuwait. One hundred hours later, they accomplished their objective. The majority of U.S. soldiers contributing to this victory received their combat field training at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. Their success on the battlefields of Iraq and Kuwait confirmed that authentic, real-time combat training leads to decisive victory. It is also at Fort Irwin that our New Jersey National Guard units, as well as active duty Army battalions from all across the world, train to be soldiers, improving their fighting skills without actual loss of life or loss of equipment. As fate would have it, I did meet with some members of the New Jersey National Guard's 1-114th Infantry Battalion as they got ready to fight in a mock battle with the regular stationed force. It was very cold out there and I even got caught in a blinding sandstorm as the temperatures dropped down below freezing. About 5500 U.S. soldiers are deployed to the National Training Center to engage in a strenuous 28 day training event called a ``rotation'' twelve times a year--you really have to admire these young men and women. From the sands of the Mojave and the arduous training at Ft. Irwin, I visited the Yuma Proving Grounds in Yuma, Arizona. At this facility, the Army tests weapons and munitions. Much of the technology tested at Yuma, near the Mexican border, is researched and developed in our own backyard at Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway Township. I had the good fortune of witnessing a test of the Crusader, an advanced tank artillery system that, as I mentioned, is designed at Picatinny Arsenal. In fact, the Crusader is one of Picatinny's major projects. The Crusader is the Army's future heavy artillery system and it will provide more reliable, more lethal firepower on the battlefield. The Crusader can fire faster, and more accurately than any existing tank or fighting vehicle in the Army's inventory. During tests at Yuma, the Crusader showed its stuff by successfully firing a round nearly 40 km! I look forward to showing Defense Secretary William Cohen where Crusader research and development takes place when he visits Picatinny on May 26. 1 have pursued his visit for several years because I believe it is important for the Defense Secretary to see firsthand the amazing work being done by the talented men and women of Picatinny--work that is critical to America's national security. I am glad Secretary Cohen has accepted my invitation to visit Picatinny; it's the first time in Picatinny's long history that a Secretary of Defense will have visited. Finally, back in Washington, last week my committee, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, gave its approval to our nation's military and intelligence programs for fiscal year 2001, including those critical programs at Picatinny and New Jersey's other military installations. You can be sure that I will continue working to strengthen our military. Most especially, I will continue working to see to it that our young soldiers are properly paid, have decent housing, and child care, remembering that 65 percent of our all-volunteer force is married, many with children. After all, these young men and women and their sense of self-sacrifice and duty, continue to serve as an inspiration for all Americans.