[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.''
____________________