[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H749-H758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 75 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 409.

                              {time}  1315


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 409) to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal 
financial assistance programs, simplify Federal assistance application 
and reporting requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the 
public, with Mr. Pease in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

[[Page H750]]

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
author of this bipartisan bill, for their very hard work in bringing 
this measure to the floor.
  This legislation will help keep Federal grant programs much more user 
friendly and less burdensome. H.R. 409 builds upon past efforts of the 
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology to 
improve program performance. This has been accomplished through, among 
other vehicles, the Government Performance and Results Act, the Single 
Audit Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.
  H.R. 409 requires Federal agencies to coordinate and streamline the 
process by which applicants apply for assistance programs, particularly 
where similar programs are administered by different Federal agencies.
  The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate better coordination 
among the Federal Government, State, local and tribal governments and 
not-for-profit organizations. It also simplifies Federal financial 
assistance application and reporting requirements and ultimately 
results in improved delivery of services to the public.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to recognize the hard work and the 
leadership provided by the original sponsors of H.R. 409, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). 
Both of these gentlemen have put in countless hours working on this 
bill, which will improve the ability of the people of this country to 
access Federal grant funds that we make available here in the Congress. 
Without their initiatives, we would not be able to be here with this 
legislation today.
  This bill did bypass the normal committee process and its sponsors 
obtained a waiver from the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform. This was possible only because of the hard work of these two 
Members and because of the bipartisan spirit with which the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn) and the subcommittee that had jurisdiction 
over this bill handled the markup of the legislation last year.
  H.R. 409 is designed to streamline and to consolidate the Federal 
financial assistance process. There are over 600 Federal programs that 
provide financial assistance to State, local and tribal governments and 
nonprofit organizations. These funds and the organizations that use 
them help provide vital services to the American people.
  Countless Americans rely on Federal financial assistance for loans, 
education, job training, childhood programs, welfare benefits and 
medical care, among other things.
  Federal funds support 163 different job training programs and over 90 
early childhood programs. Unfortunately, unwieldy administrative 
barriers can reduce the effectiveness of Federal financial assistance 
and the services it provides. Similar programs can be administered by 
numerous different agencies, and administrative requirements can be 
complicated and duplicative.
  As a result, programs run with Federal funds by State, local and 
tribal governments and nonprofit organizations are forced to use time, 
effort and money that is better applied to providing the vital services 
to the American people.
  H.R. 409, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act 
of 1999, will help solve these problems. The legislation would 
streamline the application and reporting process for Federal grants, 
promote the establishment of consistent procedures for financial 
assistance programs when applicable, and encourage the use of 
electronic application and reporting process. The bill would let local 
governments and nonprofit organizations spend less time on paperwork 
and more time doing the work that improves the lives of people.
  It also assures that the Federal Government will receive timely and 
accurate reporting from the grantee of these funds. With large grants, 
such as block grants to States, we should require accountability from 
the grant recipients. The American people are entitled to know that 
their Federal tax dollars are being spent wisely by those who receive 
Federal grants.
  We have overcome a number of issues in crafting this good, bipartisan 
bill, and I am glad to be here today as an additional sponsor of the 
bill. This is bipartisan legislation at its best. It has the support of 
a wide spectrum of politicians, both State and local, and nonprofit 
organizations. Simply put, this is good, common-sense government.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their outstanding work on this 
legislation
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to yield time within that block for those who wish to speak on 
the majority side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Horn) for bringing this bill to the floor today, taking it through his 
subcommittee last year, and being able to work with us to perfect the 
legislation that was passed in the Senate. I also want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his work on this legislation as 
the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  This is a bill that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who will 
speak in a moment, and I introduced last year, which is, as the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) just said, a common-sense approach to 
government. It is, in essence, the same legislation that was the 
subject of a hearing and then reported out of the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology last year.
  It is identical to legislation that was authored by Senators John 
Glenn and Fred Thompson which was reported out of the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee after hearings last year and then which 
passed the Senate by unanimous consent late in the last Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure every single Member of this House has heard, 
as I have, from our nonprofit organizations back home, from local and 
State governments, who expressed their frustration with the process of 
applying for Federal grants and then keeping up with the reporting 
requirements and other administrative burdens that follow.
  Right now, there are over 600 separate Federal programs that provide 
financial assistance to State and local government, tribal governments, 
and nonprofit groups. Many of these programs serve similar purposes, 
and yet they are administered by different agencies or departments.
  For example, taxpayers spend about $20 billion a year on 163 
different job training programs spread out over 15 Federal agencies. 
Eleven agencies administer over 90 early childhood education and other 
childhood programs. Each has its own unique set of applications, its 
own red tape, its own bureaucracy. And, too often, this grant 
application process is unnecessarily time consuming and costly.
  As a result, what happens is a lot of these nonprofit groups 
particularly go out and hire expensive grant writers to put together 
their proposals. That concerns me greatly because that reduces the 
resources that are available to address the very problems we want these 
nonprofits to target.
  Others who do not have the resources to go out and hire a grant 
writer try to do it themselves, and again an enormous expenditure of 
time that could otherwise be directed toward the intended mission of 
that nonprofit or local or State government. And we find that those 
groups that do finally obtain a grant often say to us, gee, I wonder if 
it is even worth going through this process, because of the reporting 
requirements that are so onerous for them or other administrative 
burdens.
  I want to remind my colleagues of something else, which is this is 
not just about the grant applicants, this is about the Federal 
agencies, too. Because we are helping them by reducing

[[Page H751]]

their work load and thus helping the taxpayer and reducing the cost to 
administer these Federal programs.
  Recently, I fielded a lot of concerns from around the country on a 
particular piece of legislation called the Drug-free Communities Act. I 
am sure every Member has their own example. But in this case this was 
legislation that I sponsored in the House. It was enacted with strong 
bipartisan support of this House. We felt that in the act we set out 
some pretty clear guidelines, criteria, as to which antidrug coalitions 
around the country would qualify for Federal matching funds.
  Unfortunately, the application process is neither simple nor clear. 
It is a lengthy, complicated instrument that even some of the more 
sophisticated antidrug coalitions around the country are having an 
awful hard time with. And, again, they are going out and hiring grant 
writers and so on to be able to apply.
  Two things are happening as a result. One, resources are being wasted 
again that otherwise would be directed in this case towards reducing 
substance abuse among our kids, which is something all of us believe in 
and want these agencies and nonprofits to be focused on.
  Second, some of the agencies and nonprofits out there, these smaller 
antidrug coalitions, are just scared away by the process. So some of 
the ones that need the assistance the most, the very ones that are in 
the most difficult financial situation, are not applying for the grant 
money. This is the kind of problem we are trying to get at.
  I will say that, in general, Congress is not above criticism for the 
way legislation is written. It is not all the agencies' fault. We need 
to do a better job up here on the Hill in putting together legislation 
that is clear, that does have guidelines that are easier to administer.
  In retrospect, we probably could have done a better job in the Drug-
Free Communities Act in terms of directing the agency to be sure that 
the intent of the bill was very clear in that regard. However, agencies 
also must be given some discretion to implement these pieces of 
legislation, and that is where so many of the problems that all of us 
have heard from our constituents arise.
  The legislation before us today addresses the problem, as the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Horn) have said, in a very specific way by going to the Office of 
Management and Budget and asking for, with their oversight, that each 
agency develop plans within 18 months, we give them 18 months, to 
streamline application administrative and reporting requirements, 
number one.
  Second, to have a uniform application for related programs. So if 
they have programs spread out over 5, 10, 15 agencies but they are 
about the same issue, we want to have a common application for the 
nonprofits and State and local governments that are applying.
  Third, we want to expand dramatically the use of electronic 
applications and reporting via the Internet to allow people to use the 
Internet for access.
  Fourth, we want to demonstrate interagency coordination to simplify 
reporting requirements for overlapping programs. The duplication out 
there is particularly frustrating, and this is something that we get at 
in this legislation.
  Finally, to set annual goals to further the purposes of this act. So 
we need the agencies to set goals and stick with them.
  In doing this work, the agencies are required in this legislation to 
work closely with State and local government, with the nonprofit 
community in setting the performance measures to achieve the goals. The 
bill also sunsets in 5 years, which I think is responsible, after a 
review by the National Academy of Public Administration.
  This bill is consistent, Mr. Chairman, with other things we have done 
in this Congress, the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, in terms of 
reducing the burden on State and local government. It is also 
consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act, so-called 
GPRA, in improving government performance generally at the Federal 
agency level.

  The intent of the legislation really is quite simple. We are trying 
to make Federal grant programs a lot more user friendly for the 
recipients but also less burdensome for the Federal agencies. It is a 
priority and has been endorsed by all of the major State and local 
governments out there, including the National Governors Conference, 
including the National Conference of State Legislators, the National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and so on. It 
is also supported by nonprofit organizations and other groups, such as 
OMB Watch.
  It is a good government measure. It will make it easier for our 
constituents and for State and local government to interact with the 
Federal Government. And, very importantly, it is going to result in 
cost savings for grant recipients and also for the Federal agencies.
  Again, I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight for bringing this bill to the floor. It is common-sense 
legislation. I urge all my colleagues to support this effort to make 
the Federal Government work better for all of our constituent groups.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has worked very hard on this issue, the 
original Democratic cosponsor of this bill with the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas for yielding me this time.
  At the outset, I want to say how positive an experience it has been 
working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on this legislation. 
He and I both believe very strongly that we need to move quickly in 
this direction, albeit we have 18 months set forth in this legislation, 
hope that we can move more quickly, but however quickly we move, we 
think this is a critically important objective. And I want to thank the 
gentleman from Ohio for his very, very outstanding work on this.
  I certainly want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for facilitating this bill 
coming to the floor so early.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years Congress has created, as we have heard, 
hundreds of programs, 600 plus of categorical programs to help 
communities and families deal with the many issues confronting them. 
Each of the programs was created with its own rules and regulations.
  In some areas, local needs do not fit the problems specifically 
covered by categorical programs. In other areas, services overlap and 
duplicate each other.
  Right now, case workers spend far too much time dealing with red tape 
and paperwork. The Federal Government has created hundreds of different 
taps through which assistance flows; and communities, programs and 
families must run from tap to tap, in many instances with a bucket, to 
help the people that we want to help as well.
  My late wife, Judy, worked for the Prince George's County School 
System. She was the supervisor of early childhood education. She used 
to tell me about children in her program with certain problems. It was 
her belief that the staff should not have to run around figuring out 
which programs a child qualifies for and how to make the child's needs 
fit the money. The program should provide money which is flexible 
enough to allow program staff to concentrate on what they know best, 
taking care of children.
  As an appropriator, Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned that 
our tax dollars be spent efficiently and effectively. In 1994, I asked 
the Department of Education to convene a working group on coordinated 
services. That was 5 years ago. This working group, which met through 
1995, included Federal employees and people from State and local 
governments and organizations across the country. In response to the 
recommendation of that working group, I began working on legislation, 
this being a result, along with work that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) has done and now is styled as H.R. 409.
  The bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to work with 
other Federal agencies to establish a uniform application for financial 
assistance for multiple programs across multiple Federal agencies. 
Critically important not to have to deal with all

[[Page H752]]

kinds of different forms when, basically, the information we are 
seeking is the same.
  Secondly, simplify reporting requirements and administrative 
procedures. Again facilitate, not impede, dollars getting to the people 
that we at the Federal level, our State colleagues and local colleagues 
all want to assist.
  Thirdly, develop electronic methods for applying for and reporting of 
Federal financial assistance funds.
  Agencies, Mr. Chairman, are also required to establish a process for 
consulting with State, local and tribal governments and nonprofit 
organizations over their implementation of the bill's requirements. 
Quoting, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act 
directs the director of OMB to establish interagency coordination of 
the collection of information and sharing of data.
  I think that is a critically important requirement. I thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his help in enunciating this in 
statute. It is important. For example, OMB must develop a single 
information release form to facilitate the sharing of information 
across multiple Federal programs.
  In my opinion, the Federal Government has the responsibility of 
fixing the problems it has created. I have talked to many leaders of 
our government, Secretary Shalala at the Department of Health and Human 
Services, Secretary Riley at the Department of Education, former 
Secretary of Labor Reisch and others.
  There are so many agencies that have programs, for instance, that 
help children, but there are a multiplicity of programs. And for the 
person who is working with a child in Head Start who may have 
nutritional problems, health problems, educational problems, social 
service problems, it is a daunting task at best to try to figure out 
how you access.
  If we are successful in this effort, as I think we will be, in 
getting the government to have a uniform form for like services, then 
we will facilitate the objectives that we want to accomplish, which are 
now somewhat impeded by the bureaucratic maze through which applicants 
must go.
  In my opinion, the Federal Government's responsibility will be 
facilitated by this act. I believe that H.R. 409 will add a much-needed 
focus on the coordination of program requirements both within and 
across Federal departments.
  Finally, I want to thank some individuals who were instrumental in 
this legislation. We ought to certainly mention Senator John Glenn. 
Senator Glenn has retired now, but Senator Glenn was a major proponent 
of legislation similar to this and, in fact, had drafted it, had 
hearings on it, considered it in committee. He was a champion of this 
issue on the Senate side.
  Again, I want to mention the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who 
is the primary sponsor of this legislation along with myself. He has 
been tireless and effective in his advocacy of simplifying the road on 
which local governments and State governments and private agencies must 
travel to access funds so that they can carry out the objectives that 
we have set forth.
  I want to also mention Seth Webb, who works for the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman). He has been so critical, an extraordinarily 
effective staffer in getting us to this position.
  I also want to mention Ms. Catriona MacDonald and Ms. Lisa Levine, 
two of my staffers, former staffers now, who did such an outstanding 
job in working on this legislation and getting us to this point.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that this legislation will pass 
unanimously. I know there were a couple of amendments. The gentleman 
from Ohio and I have discussed those. Hopefully, we can dispose of 
those quickly and adopt this and send it to the Senate.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I do not need 10 minutes. But I appreciate it.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his 
efforts; the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), who has his hands on 
a lot of good moves that are coming out of Congress; and the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his leadership on this issue; and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  I have a small, little amendment. It is a sense of the Congress at 
this point, a sense of the Congress that says when Federal agencies are 
providing economic development grants their primary focus should be on 
communities with high poverty and unemployment rates. Very simple.
  This past year, the Vice President announced 15 empowerment zones for 
urban areas. Those empowerment zones are worth $230 million over the 
next 10 years. They had a four-tier scale measuring system. One of 
those was to measure the quality of the plan submitted. That was worth 
25 points. The second one was private-public sector commitments. That 
was worth 25 points. The third one was poverty and unemployment rates, 
worth 25 points.
  The bottom line was, when it was all over, there were communities 
around America that had low unemployment rates that ended up getting 
empowerment zones because they were able to get private sector 
commitments.
  One issue in case is the Youngstown-Warren area that has a 51 percent 
poverty rate, my district, and an almost 20 percent unemployment rate. 
But because poverty and unemployment was only 25 percent of the factor, 
one community in California with a 30 percent poverty rate but only a 5 
percent unemployment rate got an empowerment zone designation. The 
reason for it was that California community was able to put up $2.5 
billion of private-public commitments.
  Now, here is what I am saying to Congress. Any community with a 5 
percent unemployment rate that could mobilize $2.5 billion of public 
and private commitments for a Federal program does not need the Federal 
money. The areas that have yet to come back because of a lack of 
diversification because of macroeconomic policies on many urban areas 
trapped in this maze do need this help.
  Now, I will be taking up legislation later this year that will make 
the empowerment zone formula weighted heavier on behalf of poverty and 
unemployment. But, for today, my amendment, and I am asking for it to 
be accepted, is a simple little sense of the Congress that says when 
these Federal funds are being provided for economic development 
purposes, their primary focus should be on hardship, poverty and 
unemployment. With that, I would appreciate Members' help.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would simply say again that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) have done 
outstanding work in bringing this bill to the floor. I think every 
American that depends upon Federal grant assistance will find that this 
bill will make it much easier for them to get through the red tape that 
so often they have to get through to access Federal dollars.
  This is a good bill. It is good for this country. I appreciate the 
bipartisan spirit in which the sponsors have brought it to the floor, 
as well as the good work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on 
the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology 
for his outstanding leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before we get on to the amendments, let me just say this has been a 
group effort. It looks kind of easy when we get to the floor sometimes, 
but nothing is easy around here. Without the gentleman from Maryland's 
willingness to step forward and provide expertise and assistance on the 
other side of the aisle, we would not be here today; and without the 
gentleman from California's willingness to prioritize this and mark it 
up last year, we would not be here today. I want to thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Turner) for joining in the fray this year.
  Also, Senator Glenn did get the ball rolling, my former colleague 
from Ohio. I know that he is watching these proceedings with great 
interest and cannot wait when it finally gets down to the White House 
for signing, which I would predict will happen within the

[[Page H753]]

next couple of months. I think the Senate will take this up on a rather 
expedited basis. This is a group effort. All the staff involved need to 
be commended as well.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by section, and each section shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Financial Assistance 
     Management Improvement Act of 1999''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) there are over 600 different Federal financial 
     assistance programs to implement domestic policy;
       (2) while the assistance described in paragraph (1) has 
     been directed at critical problems, some Federal 
     administrative requirements may be duplicative, burdensome, 
     or conflicting, thus impeding cost-effective delivery of 
     services at the local level;
       (3) the Nation's State, local, and tribal governments and 
     private, nonprofit organizations are dealing with 
     increasingly complex problems which require the delivery and 
     coordination of many kinds of services; and
       (4) streamlining and simplification of Federal financial 
     assistance administrative procedures and reporting 
     requirements will improve the delivery of services to the 
     public.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal 
     financial assistance programs;
       (2) simplify Federal financial assistance application and 
     reporting requirements;
       (3) improve the delivery of services to the public; and
       (4) facilitate greater coordination among those responsible 
     for delivering such services.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3?
  The Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any 
     agency as defined under section 551(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Federal financial assistance.--The term ``Federal 
     financial assistance'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, United States Code, under 
     which Federal financial assistance is provided, directly or 
     indirectly, to a non-Federal entity.
       (4) Local government.--The term ``local government'' means 
     a political subdivision of a State that is a unit of general 
     local government (as defined under section 7501(a)(11) of 
     title 31, United States Code);
       (5) Non-federal entity.--The term ``non-Federal entity'' 
     means a State, local government, or nonprofit organization.
       (6) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit 
     organization'' means any corporation, trust, association, 
     cooperative, or other organization that--
       (A) is operated primarily for scientific, educational, 
     service, charitable, or similar purposes in the public 
     interest;
       (B) is not organized primarily for profit; and
       (C) uses net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand the 
     operations of the organization.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust 
     Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any instrumentality 
     thereof, any multi-State, regional, or interstate entity 
     which has governmental functions, and any Indian Tribal 
     Government.
       (8) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government'' 
     means an Indian tribe, as that term is defined in section 
     7501(a)(9) of title 31, United States Code.
       (9) Uniform administrative rule.--The term ``uniform 
     administrative rule'' means a government-wide uniform rule 
     for any generally applicable requirement established to 
     achieve national policy objectives that applies to multiple 
     Federal financial assistance programs across Federal 
     agencies.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
  The Clerk will designate section 5.
  The text of section 5 is as follows:

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each Federal agency shall develop and 
     implement a plan that--
       (1) streamlines and simplifies the application, 
     administrative, and reporting procedures for Federal 
     financial assistance programs administered by the agency;
       (2) demonstrates active participation in the interagency 
     process under section 6(a)(2);
       (3) demonstrates appropriate agency use, or plans for use, 
     of the common application and reporting system developed 
     under section 6(a)(1);
       (4) designates a lead agency official for carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the agency under this Act;
       (5) allows applicants to electronically apply for, and 
     report on the use of, funds from the Federal financial 
     assistance program administered by the agency;
       (6) ensures recipients of Federal financial assistance 
     provide timely, complete, and high quality information in 
     response to Federal reporting requirements; and
       (7) establishes specific annual goals and objectives to 
     further the purposes of this Act and measure annual 
     performance in achieving those goals and objectives, which 
     may be done as part of the agency's annual planning 
     responsibilities under the provisions enacted in the 
     Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 
     103-62).
       (b) Extension.--If one or more agencies are unable to 
     comply with the requirements of subsection (a), the Director 
     shall report to the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives the reasons for noncompliance. After 
     consultation with such committees, the Director may extend 
     the period for plan development and implementation for each 
     noncompliant agency for up to 12 months.
       (c) Comment and Consultation on Agency Plans.--
       (1) Comment.--Each agency shall publish the plan developed 
     under subsection (a) in the Federal Register and shall 
     receive public comment of the plan through the Federal 
     Register and other means (including electronic means). To the 
     maximum extent practicable, each Federal agency shall hold 
     public forums on the plan.
       (2) Consultation.--The lead official designated under 
     subsection (a)(4) shall consult with representatives of non-
     Federal entities during development and implementation of the 
     plan. Consultation with representatives of State, local, and 
     tribal governments shall be in accordance with section 204 of 
     the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4; 2 
     U.S.C. 1534).
       (d) Submission of Plan.--Each Federal agency shall submit 
     the plan developed under subsection (a) to the Director and 
     Congress and report annually thereafter on the implementation 
     of the plan and performance of the agency in meeting the 
     goals and objectives specified under subsection (a)(7). Such 
     report may be included as part of any of the general 
     management reports required under law.

                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 7, after line 23, insert the following:
       (e) Department of Housing and Urban Development.--(1) Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development shall 
     develop and implement a plan that establishes policies and 
     procedures regarding an applicant who has submitted an 
     application for Federal financial assistance to the agency 
     that includes a technical deficiency under which--
       (A) the applicant shall be notified promptly of the 
     deficiency and permitted to submit the appropriate 
     information to correct the deficiency within 7 days of 
     receipt of notice by the applicant of the deficiency, 
     notwithstanding that the deadline for submission of an 
     application has expired;
       (B) the application shall continue to be considered by the 
     agency during the period before the applicant is notified and 
     the 7-day period during which the applicant is permitted to 
     correct the deficiency; and
       (C) if the applicant corrects the deficiency within the 7-
     day period, the agency shall continue to consider the 
     application.
       (2) A deficiency (including, but not limited to, a 
     misfiling, error, or omission) may be considered technical 
     for purposes of this subsection notwithstanding a material 
     impact on the eligibility of an applicant or proposed 
     activity for requested funding. A technical deficiency for 
     purposes of this subsection

[[Page H754]]

     does not include the failure to submit a substantially 
     complete application by a deadline published in the Federal 
     Register.

  Mr. KUCINICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which is designed to 
facilitate the grant process. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
spoke so well of the concerns which community groups have in making 
sure that they can participate in the Federal grant-making process, and 
he explained how they often have to hire experts in order to become 
involved to make sure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are 
crossed.

                              {time}  1345

  The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently refused to 
provide continued funding to a very worthy program for homeless men in 
Cleveland because of a technical mistake. Now to show my colleagues the 
impact which this can have, there is a great program run by the 
Salvation Army in my district which is going to be out of money because 
of what was called a technical mistake. And I explored it further, and 
my colleagues will be interested to know that the program is not funded 
because the applicants had submitted the wrong budget form, and HUD 
said that they could not consider the proposal and could not tell the 
applicant that the error had been made. They could not even tell people 
that they made an error until all the grants had been announced.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment will do is that this amendment will 
require that the applicant will be notified of a deficiency, and they 
will be permitted to correct the deficiency, and that if they do 
correct the deficiency within a 7-day period, the agency shall consider 
the application.
  We spend a lot of time here in the Congress trying to meet the needs 
of our constituents and making sure that the Federal grant process is 
available to our constituents. We spend a lot of time and show a lot of 
concern about making sure that people can get the grants which they 
need, and we certainly want to make sure that no agency feels impeded 
in its ability to discharge congressional intent by some interpretation 
which would make it impossible for the grant-making process to be 
affected in a way that is consistent with congressional intent.
  So this amendment will enable the technical deficiencies to be cured 
by the applicant and not put anyone anywhere in this country in a 
position where just a minor omission of a technical nature would knock 
them right out of the grant process and, worse than that, they cannot 
even be told.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I 
have discussed this amendment, and I know we discussed it with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) as well. I want my colleagues to know 
that I very much appreciate the gentleman's focus on this and his 
concern with this, and hopefully this matter can be resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be my intention not to object to the adoption 
of this amendment at this time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I would really appreciate the support of my 
colleagues on this, because this is something that we would not want to 
happen to any other community.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising the problem, and I 
think all of us sympathize with it. We probably all had constituents 
come to us with identical, similar problems with Federal agencies. In 
this case, it is a technical problem, and yet they are not told about 
it when they could have revised the application.
  I am not sure this is the right place to do this amendment, honestly; 
and I would have a couple questions for the gentleman. One is, how do 
we define what is technical and what is not? I assume the agencies and 
OMB are going to have questions about that. Does the gentleman have a 
definition of what is a technical deficiency?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it would be a deficiency including but 
not limited to a misfiling error or omission, and that may be 
considered technical notwithstanding material impact on the eligibility 
of a applicant or proposed activity for requested funding.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman identified some possible 
technical deficiencies to try to give agencies some guidance as to what 
would be within the 7-day rule.
  Mr. KUCINICH. The amendment is broad enough that it would not be 
limited to just a misfiling, but it also, as I indicated earlier, would 
be considered technical even if there was a material impact and 
eligibility of the applicant. Any failure, if they fail to submit 
something that was a substantially complete application which the 
Federal Register required, that would not fall under a technical 
deficiency, and they would be knocked out.
  Mr. PORTMAN. How about a cost estimate? Has the gentleman from Ohio 
had any sense of what this will cost the Federal agencies?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Since the Federal agency has already an apparatus in 
place, which they pay for in terms of personnel, this would simply 
require a phone call each time there was a deficiency so that the costs 
would be negligible.
  Mr. PORTMAN. And in terms of the 7 days, I know on some of these 
applications, and we are trying to end this process through this very 
legislation, are 2, 3, 4 inches thick, and my question would be, is 7 
days practical? In other words, do they not go through these 
application sometimes for weeks, even months?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Well, 7 days once they make a determination that an 
application should be rejected on a technical basis.
  Mr. PORTMAN. At that point, the 7 days begins to toll?
  Mr. KUCINICH. At that point, they notify them they have 7 days, and 
if they cannot do it, then that is unfortunate. But at least they have 
the time to correct it, and if it is a minor thing such as filing the 
wrong form, and they could get the wrong form, they can turn that 
around in a few days.
  So, as my colleagues know, this is not intended to create a loophole 
where someone could, in effect, I say to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), forestall the 
proper execution of the Federal grant program. But it is intended to 
make certain that no one, no worthy and otherwise proper applicant, and 
this was the case that I cited which someone had already been operating 
under a Federal grant and followed all the guidelines, no one would be 
denied the chance to be a grantee simply on a routine technical matter. 
They would have the chance to come back.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Reclaiming my time, I think again that the intent of 
this legislation we are considering today is consistent with what the 
gentleman is trying to get at. In fact, our whole idea here is to end 
up with a process at HUD and everywhere else where the application 
process is simplified, streamlined and we do not have the opportunity 
to have the kind of technical deficiencies the gentleman talked about 
because it would be clearer to the applicants. On the other hand, now 
and again it is going to happen.
  I guess I am not crazy about including this in the legislation, but 
based on what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said earlier and 
based upon the gentleman's description of the response, particularly to 
the 7 days, to the cost and then to the definition of ``technical,'' I 
guess I would not oppose the amendment being included in the 
legislation with the understanding that this is not meant to in any way 
impede, slow down the grant making process and that we will continue to 
work through process as we go back over to the Senate side to try to 
address this concern.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to tell the gentleman from Ohio that I 
appreciate the gentleman narrowing the amendment considerably from 
earlier discussions that we had.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's advice and 
counsel in doing that. It is good to

[[Page H755]]

work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Turner:
       Page 6, line 2, insert ``in a manner not inconsistent with 
     the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (title XVII of 
     Public Law 105-277)'' after ``agency''.

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that 
the plans developed by the agencies be consistent with the Paperwork 
Elimination Act of 1998. This amendment has been discussed by both the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  It is my understanding that there is no objection to the amendment 
that has been negotiated. It is simply intended not to create confusion 
for State agencies. It has been a request that was brought to us by the 
Office of Management and Budget, and we believe that it should be 
adopted without objection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is probably already 
covered under section 10 of the bill, and we did discuss this earlier. 
However, given that the language has been altered to say in a manner 
not inconsistent with existing legislation, which is the Government 
Paperwork Elimination Act, I do not see any big problem with this. I 
think it is, again, probably already covered in the legislation, but I 
do not think it will alter the intent or the purposes of the act.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for his consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 5?
  The Clerk will designate section 6.
  The text of section 6 is as follows:

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR.

       (a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with agency 
     heads, and representatives of non-Federal entities, shall 
     direct, coordinate and assist Federal agencies in 
     establishing:
       (1) A common application and reporting system, including--
       (A) a common application or set of common applications, 
     wherein a non-Federal entity can apply for Federal financial 
     assistance from multiple Federal financial assistance 
     programs that serve similar purposes and are administered by 
     different Federal agencies;
       (B) a common system, including electronic processes, 
     wherein a non-Federal entity can apply for, manage, and 
     report on the use of funding from multiple Federal financial 
     assistance programs that serve similar purposes and are 
     administered by different Federal agencies; and
       (C) uniform administrative rules for Federal financial 
     assistance programs across different Federal agencies.
       (2) An interagency process for addressing--
       (A) ways to streamline and simplify Federal financial 
     assistance administrative procedures and reporting 
     requirements for non-Federal entities;
       (B) improved interagency and intergovernmental coordination 
     of information collection and sharing of data pertaining to 
     Federal financial assistance programs, including appropriate 
     information sharing consistent with the provisions in the 
     Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579); and
       (C) improvements in the timeliness, completeness, and 
     quality of information received by Federal agencies from 
     recipients of Federal financial assistance.
       (b) Lead Agency and Working Groups.--The Director may 
     designate a lead agency to assist the Director in carrying 
     out the responsibilities under this section. The Director may 
     use interagency working groups to assist in carrying out such 
     responsibilities.
       (c) Review of Plans and Reports.--Agencies shall submit to 
     the Director, upon his request and for his review, 
     information and other reporting regarding their 
     implementation of this Act.
       (d) Exemptions.--The Director may exempt any Federal agency 
     or Federal financial assistance program from the requirements 
     of this Act if the Director determines that the Federal 
     agency does not have a significant number of Federal 
     financial assistance programs. The Director shall maintain a 
     list of exempted agencies which will be available to the 
     public through the Internet site of the Office of Management 
     and Budget.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Horn

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Horn:
       Page 10, after line 5, insert the following:
       (e) Report on Recommended Changes in Law.--Not later than 
     18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Director shall submit to Congress a report containing 
     recommendations for changes in law to improve the 
     effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance 
     programs.

  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, this section is obvious for those having the 
bill in their hands that it goes at the end of section 6 before it goes 
into section 7.
  Let me give my colleagues a brief summary of this legislation.
  This has been cleared by both the Democrat side and our side. This 
amendment requires a report from the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. The report will contain recommendations for 
changes in the law to improve the effectiveness and performance of 
Federal financial assistance programs.
  This amendment is consistent with the intent of the bill. Federal 
agencies will be working very hard to develop and implement the 
requirements of this act over the next 18 months. During this process 
they will be consulting with each other as well as with State, local 
and tribal governments. This effort will undoubtedly identify needed 
legislative changes, needed changes that will help enable this act's 
intent to be fully achieved. Congress will be able to debate these 
suggested changes and take necessary action to further streamline and 
improve the Federal financial assistance process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. It will 
simply assist this body in its continued effort to provide better 
services to the American public.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to stand in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). I think it makes sense for us to 
have better information from the Director; and I think this will, 
frankly, keep OMB more focused on the task.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment, and I support 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Turner:
       Page 8, strike lines 6 and 7.
       Page 8, line 8, strike ``(A) a'' and insert ``(1)(A) A''.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that agencies do 
not have to use a common application or reporting form unless it is 
appropriate. This amendment was also negotiated by and between the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. Chairman, It was never intended that this bill require agencies 
to use a common form at the expense of gathering necessary information. 
They need to manage their financial management programs and assure that 
Federal dollars are well spent. Any common form that would need to 
address all the programs of the Federal Government would be immense, be 
easily reaching, I suppose, hundreds or even thousand dollars of pages, 
and the bill is not intended to require agencies to use a common form 
when that form would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements. 
The amendment simply clarifies the intent of the bill in that it is the 
intent that the agency use common forms when appropriate and make sure 
that the bill is internally consistent.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I do not have concern with the amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I am not 
sure that I fully understand the explanation. I think it is the intent 
of our legislation here today, in fact, to have common forms when there 
is a similar program, and that is very clear in the legislation, and it 
has been very clear in the discussion up to this point.

[[Page H756]]

  The reason this amendment does not concern me is that, when we look 
at the language of the bill, there could have been some confusion about 
whether we would be requiring a common application and reporting system 
for all agencies. That was never the intent of the bill. In fact, the 
intent of the bill was laid out very clearly in the further 
subparagraphs which is, again, a common application or set of common 
applications where the financial assistance program serves similar 
purposes.

                              {time}  1400

  That is clearly the intent of this legislation. Therefore, I think 
this amendment is fine because it takes out any confusion as to the 
intent of the bill. It does not, and I want to make this clear because 
it is an important distinction, give the agencies any discretion. The 
agencies do have to come up with common application forms and common 
procedures to serve similar purposes.
  With that understanding, which I think is clear in the legislation 
and clear with this amendment, I certainly would be willing to support 
the amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in support of the amendment and agree that 
if you are looking at the amendment and you listen to the application 
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), as applied to the amendment 
and its integration into the bill, I think it is clear.
  I want to join the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in making it 
clear that one of the problems that we are trying to deal with is that 
every agency historically has had its own form with its special 
requirements, and it has been very difficult to get them to come to 
agreement on having a common form for common purposes.
  The staff correctly, and OMB, was concerned that we would have, as 
pointed out by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), an interpretation 
of the language in the bill that said there had to be a common form for 
every application, whether or not there were similar purposes in that 
application. That was not the intent of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), nor mine.
  However, it is, and I want to reiterate what the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) said, and I know what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) and the committee agrees, it is our intent to have agencies 
come with a common form, come to agreement so that States and local 
governments can be facilitated in accomplishing the objectives that 
these programs are established for.
  The irony has been that, on the one hand, we establish a program to 
help kids or families or farmers or whoever, and we then set up 
procedures which impede that objective.
  So I, too, will support the amendment. I think the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner) is absolutely correct. This is an amendment which 
will clarify it, but what it clarifies is that we are talking about 
similar purposes having a common form, and that will be required, not 
optional, and it will not be an agency option in the sense that they 
can decide, yes, we will do this. It is something they need to come to 
agreement on with other like agencies and like programs in establishing 
a common form.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) for his leadership and 
for yielding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 6?
  If not, The Clerk will designate section 7.
  The text of section 7 is as follows:

     SEC. 7. EVALUATION.

       (a) In General.--The Director (or the lead agency 
     designated under section 6(b)) shall contract with the 
     National Academy of Public Administration to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of this Act. Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the evaluation shall be 
     submitted to the lead agency, the Director, and Congress. The 
     evaluation shall be performed with input from State, local, 
     and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations.
       (b) Contents.--The evaluation under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) assess the effectiveness of this Act in meeting the 
     purposes of this Act and make specific recommendations to 
     further the implementation of this Act;
       (2) evaluate actual performance of each agency in achieving 
     the goals and objectives stated in agency plans;
       (3) assess the level of coordination among the Director, 
     Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, and 
     nonprofit organizations in implementing this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 8.
  The text of section 8 is as follows:

     SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the 
     Director or any Federal agency from gathering, or to exempt 
     any recipient of Federal financial assistance from providing, 
     information that is required for review of the financial 
     integrity or quality of services of an activity assisted by a 
     Federal financial assistance program.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 8?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 9.
  The text of section 9 is as follows:

     SEC. 9. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       There shall be no judicial review of compliance or 
     noncompliance with any of the provisions of this Act. No 
     provision of this Act shall be construed to create any right 
     or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any 
     administrative or judicial action.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 9?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 10.
  The text of section 10 is as follows:

     SEC. 10. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a means to 
     deviate from the statutory requirements relating to 
     applicable Federal financial assistance programs.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 10?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 11.
  The text of section 11 is as follows:

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SUNSET.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act and shall cease to be effective five years after such 
     date of enactment.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 11?
  If not, are there any further amendments to the bill?


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 11, after line 23, add the following:

     SEC. 12. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FEDERAL FINANCIAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       It is the sense of Congress that Federal agencies, in 
     providing Federal financial assistance for the purpose of 
     economic development, should focus primarily on communities 
     with high poverty and unemployment rates.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, whenever our government provides grants 
and assistance for economic development purposes, one of the strong 
criterion for such assistance should be the hardship of the communities 
needing help. While this is not totally in the purview of this bill, it 
may not be considered germane. If it would be, it would not be a sense 
of Congress. I believe it is important enough to at least have this 
flag of reminder to these Federal agencies who have the responsibility 
of granting monies to restabilize communities, that at least that 
reminder be present, and this amendment would serve that purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I 
enjoyed his explanation earlier, his description of Vice President 
Gore's announcement and so on and the concerns you have in your own 
community.
  I know that some of these programs are based on other than the 
criteria the gentleman has set out, and not being an expert in 
empowerment zones or other economic development programs I do not know 
whether that makes sense or not. That is why I think it would be unwise 
for us to, in this legislation, put into law new requirements for 
economic development programs.
  However, the gentleman has offered a sense of Congress that seems 
sensible in terms of the general direction which is we ought to focus 
economic development where it is needed. So, with that, assuming that 
the chairman has no concerns about it and assuming it is a sense of 
Congress and it is not binding

[[Page H757]]

on this Congress, I would have no objection.
  I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), for 
keeping the administration on its toes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Horn), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), I think he has made an excellent contribution to this 
debate and to this particular measure, and I completely agree with him 
that those ought to be the priorities all agencies have before they 
give out the hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. We ought to be helping 
other people that have an opportunity to have a job, have a vibrant 
economy in a particular city, and the gentleman is absolutely right 
about some cities getting more when they do not really need it, and the 
cities that need it do not get it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the help of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to simply say that, in response to my 
friend from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the administration is on its toes, but 
I am sure it is glad to hear the views of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) as well. I rise and will support this sense of the Congress.
  Clearly, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has indicated, 
there are other criteria and there are other reasons why we move into 
this area or that area for assistance. However, I think the gentleman 
from Ohio raises a very good point and certainly his explanation 
earlier raised an issue of obvious concern, not only to him but to the 
country, in terms of making sure that those communities which have both 
high poverty rates and high unemployment rates should be a focus of 
Federal assistance so that we can bring up those areas so that they 
become equally successful to some other areas of the country, and I 
would share his view.
  He said a billion and if, in fact, it was a community that can raise 
$2.5 billion, it would be certainly not a community that I represent 
but a community that has obviously a lot of ability to assist itself. I 
think in that context the gentleman's sense of Congress does, as the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) said, make sense and I would support 
it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I hold nothing against 
that California community. They played by the ground rules, but in 
legislation that will come through this House, there will be an address 
made to empowerment zones itself, and that is where I will attempt to 
change the formula, to give more of a weighted advantage to hardship, 
and that is the reason for the signal here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I join with our other colleagues in support 
of the amendment. It does represent a sense of this Congress, that 
Federal dollars should be spent where they are most needed, and there 
is nothing that undermines the Federal Government any more than 
granting funds to an agency or a community or an individual who is not 
truly in need or entitled to those funds. And I commend the gentleman 
on stepping forward today, offering this sense of Congress amendment, 
and we join with him and support its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Young of Florida) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 409) to 
improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial 
assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application 
and reporting requirements, and improve the delivery of services to the 
public, pursuant to House Resolution 75, he reported the bill back to 
the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 426, 
nays 0, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 26]

                               YEAS--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel

[[Page H758]]


     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Capps
     Davis (IL)
     Livingston
     McInnis
     Reyes
     Rush
     Taylor (MS)

                              {time}  1429

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, due to business in Colorado, I was unable 
to vote on the bill, H.R. 409. Had I been able to vote, I would have 
voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________