[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7714-H7716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4194) making appropriations for 
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, 
and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, 
and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for 
other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


            Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 4194, be instructed to insist on the House 
     position providing a total of $17,361,395,998 for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs medical care account.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think this will take very long. Let me simply 
explain what is in this motion to instruct.
  During House consideration of this bill a number of weeks ago, an 
amendment was adopted which reduced nonoverhead administrative expenses 
of the Federal Housing Administration by $303 million and transferred 
the funding to the Veterans Medical Care account. During that debate, I 
do not believe that anyone spoke against providing additional funding 
for Veterans Medical Care. There were, however, concerns about the 
source of the funding used as an offset for the increased funds. That 
concern was that reducing FHA administrative expenses by approximately 
one-third would cripple its operations with disastrous effects 
throughout the country.
  Since that time, we have now had a ruling by the Office of Management 
and Budget, and it appear that the reasons for those concerns, because 
of that ruling, have now gone away. I am not sure what the rationale 
for their change of heart is, but apparently the general counsels of 
both OMB and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have 
determined that at least for fiscal 1999, the FHA does not have to have 
appropriated funds to pay for its nonoverhead administrative expenses.
  If adopted by the House and followed by the conferees, the motion now 
before us would result in providing $17.36 billion for Veterans Medical 
Care in 1999. While this amount is still far below the $18.8 billion 
recommended by the veterans service organizations' independent budget, 
it is a big improvement above the $17.06 billion in the House-reported 
bill and higher than the Senate recommendation of $17.25 billion.
  So, Mr. Speaker, my motion is very simple. It simply reaffirms the 
action of the House, providing an additional $303 million for Veterans 
Medical Care, but without the negative impact of virtually shutting 
down the Federal Housing Administration in order to do so, the concern 
which existed prior to the OMB ruling.
  Since the OMB has now decided that the appropriated funds are not 
required for the FHA administrative expenses, this is, in essence, a 
win-win situation. Veterans health care is increased and, unlike the 
situation when the bill was before the House, it will not have to 
cripple its operating expenses in FHA in order to pay for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge all Members on both sides of the aisle 
to support the motion.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for yielding and I rise to support his motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one that voted against the transfer of this money, 
because I am concerned about housing and the problems that we have had 
with the ownership and the goals of ownership of housing in the Nation 
and did not want to take away from the FHA program.

[[Page H7715]]

  I know it was a tough vote at that time. It makes it a little tougher 
now to come back and realize that the scoring change is such that it 
does not damage FHA, but at the time clearly it was the impression and 
the representation that it did affect the FHA and the loan programs.
  I am pleased to join in finding some transfer and ability to express 
my concern for the veterans health budget. The important work in terms 
of keeping those commitments to veterans, at the same time we do not 
depreciate the goals in terms of FHA housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that my advocacy for housing is something that I 
take a second seat to no one with regards to that concern. I am pleased 
to have stood up at that time and spoken out. I sadly think that 
housing in this chamber, assisted and other types of ownership housing, 
is not something that appears to be very high in the priority agenda of 
this House. I wish we could work to gain much better support, but 
unfortunately today that is not the case and I think we are losing a 
lot of assisted and public housing which is very important to the 
constituents of my district.
  We have a great housing agency in St. Paul in Minnesota, and, 
unfortunately, I think we are facing the very real prospect of losing a 
considerable amount of that assisted and public housing which is 
expensive and which is very, very much needed today because of the 
disparities in terms of incomes and the special populations that I 
represent of Southeast Asians and many others who are attempting to get 
by in our modern day economy.
  As one of my mentors and teachers taught: On the average, things look 
all right, but nobody lives on the average. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for bringing this motion to the 
House today and support veterans and hope that in the future we can do 
better for the important housing programs in this Nation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for his support. I would simply say that with 
respect to housing in general, this Congress is going to have some 
severe problems in the coming 2 or 3 years because of some severe 
shortfalls that are going to occur in that account.
  I am happy that OMB and the agency involved have now been able to 
make certain that we will be able at this juncture to fund the increase 
in veterans health care without crippling further the operation of the 
FHA housing account. I think it would be a very useful thing to 
accomplish and that is why we offer this motion and make clear that 
that is how everyone in the House feels.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for the chairman of the 
subcommittee to object to this amendment, for essentially the amendment 
confirms that which was the direction of the House. I must say that I 
am both a little confused and rather startled at the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the full committee, essentially 
carrying an amendment that would in its written form appear to limit 
the flexibility of the subcommittee that goes to conference with the 
other body.
  While the Office of Management and Budget had told us that we needed 
to have these monies out of discretionary accounts for administrative 
purposes, and after we walked the plank taking money that otherwise 
could have gone to other vital needs in housing areas, essentially 
forced us in the direction of putting discretionary money into 
administrative responsibilities, they have now cut off that plank which 
was the plank that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) found 
himself on and they have now had us on that plank and neatly cut it 
off.
  My concern, though, is that there is little doubt that within 
Veterans Medical Care we have done all that we could to make certain 
that those accounts were reasonably funded. Indeed, our amount in the 
bill, before this amendment, was over the President's request. Over the 
President's request. I think both sides, especially members of the 
Committee on Appropriations, know that in a nonpartisan way we have 
been very generous to veterans' accounts. But also the Committee on 
Appropriations members know how important it is for us to maintain the 
integrity of our committee as we go to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disconcerted by the fact that we have not been 
able to fund subsidized rental accounts as we might have. The 
affordable housing accounts that the gentleman from Minnesota referred 
to could use additional funding. The money we are dealing with here are 
outlays at very high levels like 90 percent, so it puts very great 
pressure on the subcommittee in terms of the flexibility we need. 
Indeed, one might suggest that some of those other very vital accounts 
that are designed to help poor people might have received some relief 
if there was more flexibility going to conference with the Senate.
  I know that it is not the intent of the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations to create a circumstance where it is more 
difficult for us to do our work. But I do scratch my head at the 
ranking member repeating essentially what was the will of the House 
when they voted on that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this subcommittee 
chairman, I am not sure about the ranking member, but this subcommittee 
chairman takes very seriously the direction of the House. And I 
consider every element of our bill to be the direction of the House as 
I go to work with the Senate.
  I must say that if there is a pattern that could further undermine 
the entire Committee on Appropriations in its credibility in this body, 
it is by way of creating this kind of rigid stance on the part of the 
leadership of the committee itself.
  I talked with the ranking member of the subcommittee just after I 
learned about this proposal, for he and I share our concern about 
making sure we have great flexibility, especially to deal with housing 
accounts, and I was astonished to learn that that was the first he had 
heard of this recommendation when I presented it to him.

                              {time}  1300

  So it seems to me that there is a disconnect here. I know that when 
the ranking member was in the majority on the Committee on 
Appropriations he would have been pounding the table at this kind of 
rigid direction. Nonetheless, I see this as an expression of the will 
of the House, and I do not know why the chairman should object to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I would like to make one comment, if I could have the attention of 
the gentleman from California. Surely this is not the most startling 
action that I have ever taken in the gentleman's eyes. The gentleman 
said he was startled.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman 
that I am certain it is not the most startling.
  Mr. OBEY. All right.
  Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that I do wish that we could have 
contacted the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. He was 
unreachable this morning because he was engaged in other activities. 
That is the only reason he was not contacted.
  I think it is very clear that we are simply offering this motion 
because the House spoke clearly about its desire to fund the veterans' 
health care budget as fully as we could. But at the time it spoke, a 
number of Members were under the impression that that action could not 
be taken by crippling the FHA housing accounts. Since we now find out 
that that concern has been corrected by the OMB ruling, we felt this 
was the logical action to take, and that is why I offered the 
amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I understand there is also a proposal, as the 
gentleman is aware, and I am not asking his position on it, that would 
expand the FHA limits, which has been something very much sought after 
by

[[Page H7716]]

the administration. This particular change would not affect the 
expansion of those limits, is that correct, that the subject of 
difference will be within the conference?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentleman that, no, this does not have anything to do with that. On 
that issue, if I could take both HUD and several other parties to the 
issue and put them in a room and forget about them for 2 years, I would 
be happy to do that.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would join the gentleman in locking that door until agreement is 
achieved regarding FHA limit increases.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I have no additional requests for time, but I would like 
to close by making a couple of limited comments.
  I must say that there is little doubt that within some of these 
accounts that are housing accounts, like vouchers, like subsidized 
rental housing, like programs that involve the efforts we have to open 
the doorway of opportunity to the poorest of the poor in our society, 
we have not had all the money that we would like to have in those 
accounts. Indeed, this administrative decision by OMB originally did 
put great pressure upon those elements of the housing accounts.
  To now have them change their mind and not have us have the 
flexibility to apply them, for example, to a great priority of the 
Secretary of Housing, vouchers, or some other very, very vital housing 
program, where we are dealing with the poorest of the poor, and shift 
it to accounts where we are over the President's request in the bill, 
before the fact, at least causes me to scratch my head, when the 
ranking member knows how important it is when we go to conference with 
the Senate to have as much flexibility as possible. By this action we 
may very well have harmed many of the very poor people in our country 
that the ranking member at least tells me constantly he is so concerned 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of no quorum is considered 
withdrawn.

                          ____________________