[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 75 (Thursday, June 15, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H4489-H4498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4635, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 525 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 525
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with
``except that'' on page 63, line 4, through ``drinking water
contaminants'' on line 8; page 67, lines 4 through 14. Where
points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not
against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points
of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause
2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
[[Page H4490]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Rules; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 525 is an open rule that provides for
the consideration of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and
independent agencies.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Under this open rule, the bill will be considered for amendment by
paragraph, and Members will offer their amendments under the 5-minute
rule. Priority recognition will be afforded to those Members who have
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding unauthorized or
legislative provisions of the bill, except as specified in the rule.
The rule also waives points of order against amendments for failure
to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI since there is an emergency
designation in the bill.
In an effort to provide for orderly and expedited consideration of
the bill, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes as long as the first
vote in a series is 15 minutes.
Finally, the minority will have an additional opportunity to change
the bill through the customary motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.
Madam Speaker, the fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill
provides another example of a carefully crafted bill that strikes a
balance between fiscal discipline and social responsibility.
I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and
his subcommittee for setting priorities and making very tough decisions
required to produce a thoughtful bill that meets our greatest needs. It
was hard work, and it was done well.
The VA-HUD appropriations bill funds a variety of programs from
veterans' benefits and housing for the poor to the space program and
environmental protection. Overall, this year's bill provides $4.9
billion more than last year in discretionary spending.
Within the confines of a limited budget allocation, the subcommittee
set priorities and decided to provide a significant portion of this
year's increase to veterans medical care. An extra $1.3 billion is
provided to veterans health care which will help the Federal Government
repay the debt we owe to those Americans who were willing to trade
their lives to protect the freedoms that we enjoy. It may be impossible
to compensate these individuals for their contributions and their
sacrifices, but this bill makes a good-faith effort.
Under this legislation, more than $20 billion will be available to
provide medical care and treatment for veterans through VA medical
centers, nursing homes, outpatient facilities, and other institutions
that make up the largest Federal health care delivery system.
This bill does not just throw more money at the VA health system. It
recognizes its shortcomings and makes recommendations for improvements.
For example, the bill limits the amount of resources that may be used
for maintenance and operations of buildings. A GAO report shows that
one in four medical dollars is spent on upkeep of facilities which
demonstrates poor planning that unnecessarily zaps resources from
medical care.
In addition, the bill addresses a concern about the alarming
incidents of hepatitis C among veterans and directs the GAO to examine
the VA's response to this awful epidemic.
This legislation also directs the Department to review its drug
formulary with a goal of ensuring veterans' access to necessary
medications, medical supplies prescribed to them.
In addition to taking care of our veterans, the Federal government
has a responsibility to the poor and the vulnerable in our society,
especially those Americans who cannot provide the most basic
necessities to themselves and their families, such as housing.
Low-income families will benefit through this bill's investment in
the Housing Certificate Program which provides funding for Section 8
renewals and tenant protections. A $1.9 billion increase will allow for
renewal of all expiring Section 8 contracts as well as provide
relocation assistance at the level requested by the President.
Other housing programs that help our Nation's elderly, homeless,
persons with AIDS, and Native Americans will receive level funding.
In addition to addressing today's societal needs, the Federal
Government has a responsibility to look to the future and protect the
interests of the next generation.
The VA-HUD bill fulfills that responsibility by funding environmental
protection through the EPA. Specifically, this legislation puts an
emphasis on the States, particularly in the areas of clean water, safe
drinking water, and clean air.
The State Revolving Fund for safe drinking water will be increased by
$5 million, the fund for clean water will be increased by $400 million
above the President's request, and State air grants will receive an
increase of $16 million over last year.
Along with our commitment to environmental protection, an investment
in science and technology will secure our Nation's future strength.
The VA-HUD bill will provide an increase of $167 million for the
National Science Foundation, bringing funding for this agency to $4.1
billion. This investment will help the agency continue its mission of
developing a national policy on science and promoting basic research
and education in the sciences. NASA will also see an increase of $112
million. That will bring total funding to more than $13.7 billion.
Through this legislation, the United States will have the resources
to maintain its preeminence in space and aeronautical research and
accomplishment.
Madam Speaker, despite these thoughtful investments in our Nation's
priorities, we are likely to again hear our Democrat colleagues bemoan
the lack of funding in this bill. But I would remind my colleagues and
make clear to the American people that we are increasing funding over
what we spent last year. In fact, total funding from this legislation
is $8.2 billion above last year's level.
Does every program get an increase? No. But it is irresponsible to
suggest that level funding or small cuts in some programs will lead to
devastation. The truth is that this legislation takes a responsible
path of governance by maintaining fiscal discipline and adhering to
budget limits. These constraints require us to take a hard look at
Federal programs, reduce waste and fraud where we can, and set
priorities. That is exactly the kind of oversight Congress needs to
exercise if we are to be responsible stewards of the taxpayers' hard-
earned money.
We must reject the simplicity of arguments that say more spending is
always better and, instead, look at spending bills in the context of
where our Nation's needs lie and what priorities we can fulfill within
our means.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this open rule and support
the fiscal and social responsibility the underlying legislation
embodies.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0915
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the customary half-
hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the bill for which this rule provides consideration
funds two sets of programs, the veterans programs and the housing
programs. While it does a relatively good job funding most veterans
programs, and I really applaud the committee, that is just the good
news. The bad news is that it just does not go far enough in funding
veterans medical research and State veterans homes. The bill severely
[[Page H4491]]
underfunds housing programs to the tune of $2.5 billion less than the
President's request.
Madam Speaker, I can tell my colleagues from firsthand experience on
both counts, veteran and housing, that they are very vital. They save
lives, they give people hope, and they should be adequately funded.
That is why I just cannot understand why my Republican colleagues are
so opposed to adding this additional money to help Americans find
affordable housing.
Tuesday's Washington Post editorialized this bill, saying, and I
quote, ``HUD reports that 5.4 million families are either paying more
than half their income for housing or having to live in severely
inadequate accommodations.'' The Post further explains that what might
be an economic boom for the rich and middle classes is actually a
problem for affordable housing. As the economy gets better, affordable
housing gets harder and harder to obtain.
Yet my Republican colleagues are determined once again to use the
budget surplus to give tax breaks for the very rich rather than to use
it to help everyone else find some kind of housing. Specifically, Madam
Speaker, this bill will freeze spending for low-income elderly and
disabled people, it will cut home programs which help local governments
expand low-income housing, it cuts capital grants for public housing,
and it cuts Community Development Block Grants. In short, it does very
little to improve the plight of millions of American families that are
struggling to find housing in today's very, very tough market.
That is not all, Madam Speaker. In addition to ignoring the plight of
the American families, this bill could do much more to make sure
American veterans get the very best medical care that we can provide.
Madam Speaker, veterans of World War II, the men who risked their lives
for world peace, are dying at the rate of 1,000 people a day. For many
in veterans health care, it just has not been all that it has been
promised to be.
Madam Speaker, World War II veterans, all American veterans, deserve
the best health care we can afford them. They need their country to
keep its promise. And although this bill funds veterans medical care at
the President's request, it still is really not enough to meet the need
of the aging veterans population. For instance, this bill freezes
funding for veterans medical research, the research that makes sure our
veterans hospitals attract the very best doctors and provide the very
best care. It also cuts money for the construction of State veterans
homes.
Madam Speaker, listen to this fact. One-third of all the homeless
people living in the streets are veterans of our military. This is
absolutely wrong. Today, there are 5.9 million veterans of World War
II. They make up one-fourth of all our American veterans. There are 8.1
million Vietnam era veterans, 4.1 million Korean conflict veterans, 2.2
million Gulf War veterans, 3,400 World War I veterans, not to mention
5.8 million peacetime veterans. Now, Madam Speaker, that is a lot of
people expecting their country to make good on the promise of good
health care, and this bill does not go far enough to honor that
commitment.
It also fails to fund either AmeriCorps or an EPA cleanup of the
Great Lakes. It underfunds NASA. It severely underfunds, by more than
$2.5 billion, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, our
Nation's safety net in time of natural disasters. Madam Speaker, we
should all cross our fingers and hope that there are no hurricanes, no
floods, and no tornadoes next year, because we may not be able to pay
for them. Madam Speaker, during this economic boom, during this
unprecedented American prosperity, we should be looking to adequately
fund these Federal programs and we have not.
In the Committee on Rules, my Republican colleagues rejected two
amendments, one to increase funding for elderly housing, disabled
housing, homeless housing and housing for people with AIDS, and another
to restore funding for housing, NASA, and the National Science
Foundation. Both amendments were defeated on a party vote. Madam
Speaker, without these amendments, the bill simply does not go far
enough to help the people who really need it. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this bill and oppose this rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me simply say that this is one of six appropriation bills that
the President has indicated he would veto, because this is one of the
bills that is scaled back by a huge amount from the President's request
in order to make enough room in the budget for the Republican tax
package which gives 73 percent of the benefits to people who are in the
richest 1 percent category of all taxpayers. They give, for instance,
$90 billion in one bill alone in tax relief to people who make over
$300,000 a year. And so because they use the money for that, they have
to invent ``let's pretend'' games on this bill.
Previous comment was just made that this is $4 billion over last
year. Baloney. Last year's budget contained $45 billion of accounting
tricks that made last year's budget look $45 billion smaller than it
is, and $4.2 billion of the $4.9 billion alleged increase in this bill
comes because of those budget gimmicks that hid last year's spending.
This bill is $6.5 billion below the President's request. On veterans,
it includes a welcome increase for veterans medical care, but it fails
to address adequately a number of other veterans programs. It freezes
funding for veterans medical and prosthetic research, it cuts grants
for construction of State veterans homes and a variety of other items.
In a politically pugnacious act that is bound to cause turmoil rather
than pull people together, the committee has eliminated all funding for
the President's top priority, the AmeriCorps program. On housing, it
does virtually nothing to improve the housing situation in this
country. It appropriates no funds for the 120,000 new housing units,
the vouchers proposed by the administration.
It cuts the Community Development Block Grant by $276 million below
current level. Assistance for the homeless is frozen, which will mean
more homeless people will be frozen, too, come next winter. It provides
$2.5 billion less than the President requests.
On EPA, in addition to some of the other reductions in the
President's budget, it totally rejects the President's proposal for $50
million to begin a major cleanup of the Great Lakes.
The National Science Foundation. The President's request is cut by
$500 million. I will return to that in a minute.
This bill ought to be called the Tobacco Company Protection Act of
the Year 2000. There is a slippery scheme going on in this Congress.
What is happening is that, first of all, the Justice Department is
being denied funds in the bill that funds that agency in order to
pursue suits against the tobacco companies for lying to this country
for 50 years about the cancer-causing nature of tobacco. The Justice
Department is provided no funds in their own bill, and then, in each of
the appropriation bills coming through here, the Justice Department is
forbidden from going to other agencies that would benefit from our suit
to recover funds to help finance it. So the veterans department will
lose millions of dollars in potential additional revenue, and Medicare
will lose billions of dollars in additional potential revenue.
I never want to hear the other side prattle any more about their
dedication to Medicare, because this ought to be called the Medicare
Insolvency Act of 2000. The Republicans assure that the government
cannot effectively proceed to sue the tobacco companies to get back
some of the costs that Medicare and veterans programs have laid out
because of the lying performance of the tobacco industry over the last
40 years.
What the Republicans ought to tell the tobacco companies is that they
ought to go jump in the nearest lake. But this Congress does not have
the guts to do that. These provisions are in these bills for one
reason. Not because they are right, but because the tobacco companies
are powerful, and they ought to be stripped out.
Now, I would like to return to the National Science Foundation. Every
politician on this floor brags about what we are doing for the National
Institutes of Health. Oh, yes, we want to
[[Page H4492]]
get their budgets up by 15 percent, so we raise the NIH budget by 15
percent. NIH does research on all health problems in the country. But
then what happens is, the committee slips a little provision in the
labor-health bill which says, ``Oh, yes, we have appropriated a $3.7
billion increase, but NIH can only spend $1 billion of it.'' Which
means they will have fewer new research grants going out next year than
this year.
And then take a look at the National Science Foundation. Economists
tell us that in the past 50 years half of the United States economic
productivity can be attributed to technological innovation and the
science that has supported and developed it. The way science works is
that organizations such as the National Science Foundation develop the
basic science. And then, when they answer the key questions of nature,
then that science is given to the National Institutes of Health and the
National Institutes of Health do research which is more applied in
nature, leading to specific cures for specific diseases. But the
underlying foundation of all progress against human disease is the
National Science Foundation, and the President's budget for it is being
whacked by $500 billion.
Now, I know that the chairman of this subcommittee is a good man. And
if he had enough dollars, he would put dollars in the National Science
Foundation. It is not his fault that this bill is in a shambles like
this. He has done the best he can, given the fact that he was given an
impossible limit on what the committee could provide in the first
place.
I would urge a vote against the bill, and I would also urge a vote
against the rule, because the Committee on Rules made in order none of
the amendments that we requested in order to try to correct this
problem. They say, ``Oh, the amendments had no offsets.'' Our position
is that virtually everything we are trying to do to increase funding
for education, for health care, for science, can be financed by about a
20 to 30 percent reduction in the size of the tax gifts that the other
side is planning to give to the wealthiest 2 percent of all Americans.
That is the linkage. They resent it every time we raise it, but that is
the truth.
Even the amendment that was offset, that would have provided tiny
amounts of additional help for housing for the elderly, for the
disabled, for the homeless, and for housing opportunities for people
with AIDS, even that amendment, which would have provided an offset by
using funding that was already approved in passage of the authorization
bill that passed this House by only four dissenting votes, even that
was denied.
{time} 0930
So I urge rejection of this bill and I urge rejection of the rule.
And, sooner or later, I urge the majority party to begin a process of
working together so we can produce bipartisan appropriations bills
rather than partisan political documents.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such
time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for recognizing me to
work with my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Judge Pryce), who has guided this rule through the House now for
2 years in a row. She does it with aplomb and grace. We appreciate her
help not only today but also in the full Committee on Rules.
I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for giving us a fair and
honest rule, for giving us an opportunity to bring this bill to the
floor with an open rule, and to protect what should be protected and
not protect what should not be protected in the bill.
This is, as has been discussed, a very complex bill. It is always
easier to bring a bill through the House with lots of extra money in
it. Positive things seem to happen when we do that. But we do not have
lots of extra money.
I would submit that, if we provided all the money that the President
requested for this bill, our surplus would be far smaller than it is
projected. And it says something about the way we have attempted to
present this bill and the other bills.
We know that, no matter how much we spend, the White House will want
to spend more. That is a fact. Everybody knows that. So when we get to
the end of this process, if we are up here with the House bill or the
conference report, the President will get us to here. So if we start
here, then we maybe get a little bit higher because we know there is an
unlimited thirst for more spending down there.
So do we have enough money in this bill to meet all of our needs?
Barely. Will we probably spend more by the time we are finished? I
suspect that we will. History would tell us that that is true.
What we tried to do was present an honest bill with honest numbers,
and the House will make its judgment on this today.
What we did do, Madam Speaker, is we put in a fully funded Veterans
Medical Care package, $1.355 billion. That is what the President
requested. That is what the subcommittee presented.
Now, I would remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, last year the
President wanted to level fund the Veterans Medical Care. We put in
over, I believe, $1.7 billion last year above the President's request.
I think the President learned from that. Now he has realized that the
veterans are a priority with the House; and he came back with, I think,
an honest request, and we honored it.
So I think we have done well for veterans in this bill. I think that
any Member who supports this bill, the main reason they will do so is
because they want to keep our commitment to our veterans.
As my colleagues know, there are a number of other areas in this bill
that we address. One of them is HUD. The President asked for a 20
percent increase in HUD funding, 20 percent equals a $6 billion
increase in HUD.
Now, my colleagues can imagine what would happen if we did that with
every bureau in the Federal budget. There would be no surplus. We would
be back in deficit spending. So we tried to pare that request down to
meet the absolute needs of the housing and economic development aspects
of this bill.
We fully funded section 8 housing. There was a request on the part of
the administration to put an additional 120,000 section 8 vouchers into
this bill.
Madam Speaker, they did not even use $2 billion worth of section 8
money last year; 247,000 section 8 vouchers went begging last year.
Now, what kind of service is that to the American public? What kind
of service is that to the people who deserve and need the help of their
government to provide for their housing? 247,000 section 8 vouchers
unused. And they are asking for another 120,000 this year.
We will be glad to discuss those at the end of this process, but HUD
needs to do a lot better job of using these billions of dollars that we
are appropriating to provide for housing for those among us who have
the most need.
Within the Community Development Block Grant program there was a
slight reduction of $20 million in the Block Grant program. So there
will be a very tiny reduction in this Community Development Block Grant
program for our cities and our entitlement communities.
EPA's operating programs have been funded, while the various State
programs which assist the States in implementing Federal law have been
more than fully funded.
The Clean Water SRF program that was gutted by the President's budget
request has been restored to $1.2 billion, while State and local air
grants and section 13 non-point source pollution grants have been
significantly increased.
Perhaps most importantly, we proposed a $245 million expenditure,
more than double last year's amount and $85 million more than the
President requested, for section 106 pollution control grants. These
grants offer the States maximum flexibility to deal with the difficult
TMDL issues facing the States.
One of my distinguished colleagues on the other side said that FEMA
was underfunded by over $2 billion. I would remind my colleague that
there is $2
[[Page H4493]]
billion in the FEMA pipeline unspent, unobligated, authorized, and
appropriated. Those funds are waiting for an emergency that we all know
will come, and we are ready for it. And those $2 billion are waiting
for that to happen. When it happens, FEMA will begin to pay out. And if
$2 billion is not enough, we will do an emergency supplemental, which
we do every single year, at least one.
So I think $2 billion waiting in the pipeline is sufficient to handle
any emergency; and if it is not, we can provide the balance through the
emergency supplemental.
Madam Speaker, there is one point regarding this bill which needs to
be made. I stated at the outset that we face a tight allocation.
Nevertheless, there is some talk circulating that we had a tremendously
huge increase in our allocation, over $5 billion. I would like to try
to clarify that.
The reality is that our allocation is $78 billion in new budget
authority. The reality is that CBO reported our freeze level at $76.9
billion. We have, therefore, a net increase of just a little over $1
billion in actual budget authority over last year.
I hasten to add that that increase has been eaten up by the VA
Medical Care increase of over $1.3 billion, and the section 8 housing
vouchers, which we fully funded even though they are not spending it.
We wanted to be fair; and hopefully, HUD will do a better job of
getting that money out to the people who need it; and increases in
National Science Foundation and NASA. NASA is increased by over $100
million and National Science Foundation by $167 million, very
substantial increases.
Lastly, I would just like to make a point on this issue of tobacco in
this bill. There has been a lot of rhetoric. We are going to hear a lot
more today. I would just like to point out that this subcommittee has
struggled mightily to make sure that we have the resources available to
provide for our veterans' medical care, to meet the commitments that
were made years and years and years ago to those men and women who put
their lives on the line for their country.
Now the administration is shopping from one budget to the next to
find the money to run this suit against the tobacco companies. If they
want to do that, that is fine. All we are saying is do not use medical
care money, do not use our veterans' medical care funds.
There is not one single veterans' organization that has come out and
said, yes, it is okay to use our medical care money for this lawsuit.
Not one. We are going to hear something possibly to the contrary. But
listen closely. What the veterans are saying is, we have no objection
to this lawsuit. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not, either. But do
not use veterans' medical care, because those dollars are precious. And
we can tell our colleagues in each and every area of health care what
impact those losses of $4 million to $6 million per year as long as
that suit goes on will mean to our veterans.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. Is it perfect? No.
If it were, I would not have my name on it, because I do not think I
have ever done anything perfect. But it is a good start. I would
appreciate very much the support of both parties across the aisle. If
we do not get that, I think we can pass this bill anyway. But I would
like to have bipartisan support. I think we will by the time we are
completed.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, to respond to the previous
speaker.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, my distinguished friend has just indicated that we
should not use veterans' money because that money is too precious and
we should not use it in a tobacco suit. Well, if you do not let the
Justice Department use its own money and if you do not let the agencies
who are going to receive the money from that suit, you are not going to
have a successful suit.
The fact is that this suit will bring in many times more dollars to
the veterans' health care fund than it would ever cost to pursue that
suit; and, in my judgment, if you vote against allowing that to happen,
you are really voting to make the veterans' health care fund less sound
than it is and to make Medicare less sound than it is.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the subcommittee chairman.
Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I just wanted to
respond.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is correct. I think the
Justice Department should use their own funds, not veterans' medical
care funds. I would remind the gentleman that there is absolutely no
guarantee that any of those funds will come back to the veterans.
In fact, if the administration's policies are consistent, those funds
will go into the Treasury, just like the funds that are available from
the Veterans Millennium Health Care Fund that plows private insurance
back into the Treasury. We want those funds to go into the Veterans'
Administration.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, let me point out that the amendment that we
offered, the amendment that the Committee on Appropriations refused to
make in order, specifically provided that the money would go in that
veterans' account. If you do not believe it, ask the sponsor of the
amendment. She is sitting right here.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to
my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
(Mr. Ehlers asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and comment on
this bill. It is a pleasure, also, to recognize the efforts of our good
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), who faced a very
difficult position in this particular subcommittee this year, because
it simply was not given an allocation sufficient to do the job.
I have previously made an issue of this inadequate allocation on the
floor. I have also generated a letter to the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations and to the Speaker pointing out the need to increase
the allocation to this subcommittee so that it can meet its
responsibilities in the various areas. I am referring particularly to
one special area, and the rest of my comments will be regarding that.
Many times I have spoken to the House and to the Nation about the
importance of continuing a strong research effort in science,
engineering, technology, and mathematics. Very few people in this
country realize that this marvelous economic boom that we now enjoy is
due largely to advancements in science and technology.
One-third of our economic growth is due just to one factor. That
factor is information technology. When we add to that the improvements
and increases in technology in other areas, we find well over half of
our economic growth is due just to advancements in science and
technology. It is absolutely essential for our country to keep ahead of
this research curve if we want our economic boom to continue.
Right now, relative to other nations, our investments in science,
engineering, technology, and mathematics research have been decreasing.
For example, Japan's research funds, as a percent of GDP, are greater
than ours and increasing faster. Germany is above us. South Korea,
believe it or not, is advancing rapidly and very shortly will be
spending more for research, as a percent of GDP, than the United
States.
Those countries recognize that they have to do this to remain
economically viable and to catch up with us.
{time} 0945
Our Nation has made improvements in the last several years. I am
really delighted with the budget that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) and others developed last year in this area. I am also pleased
with what he has been able to do this year within his allocation. Last
year the funding in the House bill was so abysmal that I offered a
floor amendment. This year I do not plan to do that, because the
gentleman from New York has done yeoman's service in coming to the
floor with an amount for science, mathematics, and engineering research
that is appropriate, given his allocation. But the point is the
allocation simply was not large enough.
I want to get on the record that my lack of offering an amendment
this
[[Page H4494]]
year does not mean I am happy with this bill's scientific research
budget or think it is great enough. Rather, I am convinced that given
the gentleman from New York's good efforts and what he has done with
the small allocation he has, I believe that, when we go to conference
and deal with the Senate and negotiate with the President, the final
result will be good for the Nation and good for the scientific research
community. I wanted to get on the record that this is an extremely
important area for our Nation and for our future, particularly our
long-term future. I hope all of us in this Congress will unite in
providing sufficient funding for scientific research.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan) who has called this measure ``a series of missed
opportunities.'' I completely agree. These opportunities have been
squandered because the priority of the Republican leadership has been
to provide huge tax cuts to the wealthiest of all Americans. Dollars
earmarked to tax cuts are not available to fund programs important to
most Americans.
Among those opportunities squandered are $25 million less for medical
research conducted by the VA. This is some of the best research in the
whole United States going after Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's
disease. This money would be cut by $25 million. There is $80 million
less funding for the construction of State homes to provide for the
growing need of long-term care for our Nation's disabled, infirm, and
aging veterans; $3 million less to maintain our national cemeteries;
and $62 million less for other important construction projects.
My Republican colleagues will say that they were constrained to
provide this needed funding. Do not be misled. Squandered opportunities
and available shortfalls in funding for basic programs are the
consequences of the priority of the Republican leadership of this
House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. LaFALCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I have the greatest both professional and personal
respect and admiration for the chairman of the housing appropriation
subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan). I think they have done the best job they possibly
could. But by their own words, they said they were operating under a
constraint, an overly tight allocation. The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Ehlers) came up, I have the greatest respect for him, too, and he
bemoaned the fact that we have to live under this unbelievable
constraint. That constraint is grounds enough for voting against the
bill because it is much, much too tight in virtually every area. When
we look at real cuts, we have had real cuts over the past 6 years in
housing program after housing program.
But now we are dealing with the rule. What could we do within those
tight allocation constraints? We could change some programs that would
make money for the government and then we could use them on programs
such as housing for the elderly, for the disabled, for the homeless,
for the afflicted. So we came up with some provisions that we offered
to the Committee on Rules, provisions that have already passed the
House of Representatives in the authorization bill, provisions that
were praised by the chairman of the housing authorization subcommittee
and by the chairman of the full banking and housing committee.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and I said, Let's do more for the homeless,
for the elderly, for the disabled, and we can pay for it within this
bill with changes that are bipartisan in nature. We were rejected,
maybe because we were Democrats, and that is one very, very good reason
for as unanimous opposition to this rule as we can muster.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, let me just say that the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from New York, who is a friend but who yesterday missed
an opportunity to vote to increase funding for veterans health care by
allowing the Department of Justice to proceed with their suit against
the tobacco companies which, in fact, would recover billions of dollars
because the tobacco industry lied to the American people about the
addictive quality of its product.
We would have been able to return that money to the Veterans'
Administration in order to provide for health care for veterans in this
country who are suffering. Yet, the chairman missed an opportunity to
vote to increase funding for veterans health care, and those on the
other side of the aisle voted against us being able to provide these
needed funds. So it is disingenuous to talk this morning about how they
want to try to preserve resources for veterans health care. Let the
record show that the opportunity was there and he said no, as did
others.
This bill, including the issue on veterans, includes the issue of
housing. Unfortunately, this legislation takes us in an opposite
direction from our promise for affordable and accessible housing in
this Nation. It says to people who want to buy a home, the American
dream, this robs thousands of Americans by cutting first-time home
buyer assistance by $65 million.
It cuts 120,000 new rental assistance vouchers that would help
hardworking, low-income Americans. It cuts community development block
grants by $295 million, robbing cities large and small of the lifeblood
of community projects. It has cutbacks for the most vulnerable, $180
million in funds for local programs for the homeless. This bill
undermines hardworking low- and moderate-income Americans struggling to
make ends meet and it does that in order that we may provide a tax cut
for the wealthiest Americans.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, this issue of tobacco which I suspect will dominate
the debate today, unfortunately, because we are spending billions of
dollars to meet our commitments to veterans, the focus will tend to be
on the 4 or $5 million that the administration wants to take out of
veterans medical care and spend on this lawsuit.
I have a letter here from the American Legion. I would just like to
read excerpts from it.
It says:
``In the VA-HUD and independent agencies for fiscal year 2001
appropriations bill is language prohibiting the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs from transferring Veterans Health Administration funds to the
Department of Justice for the purpose of supporting tobacco litigation.
Although we support tobacco litigation efforts as an alternative, the
American Legion strongly supports the use of VHA funds for the
provision of health care to veterans.
``The American Legion strongly encourages Congress to identify $4
million in the projected surplus to be earmarked in the Department of
Justice appropriations bill to pay for the VA's share of any
litigation. VA funding should be used for its intended purpose, `to
care for him who shall have borne the battle.' ''
Pretty clearly, the largest veterans organization in the country does
not want veterans medical care funds used for a lawsuit to pay lawyers.
That is another department's responsibility. These funds are precious.
Let us keep them where they are.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the letter that the gentleman conveniently
cites was written by an organization that did not know that the DeLauro
amendment yesterday would have put all of the funds recovered from that
suit back into the agencies that we are talking about, Medicare and the
Veterans Agency. So the gentleman can quote an irrelevant letter if he
wants but the fact is that he cannot convince anyone that any veterans
organization is going to oppose an action which
[[Page H4495]]
would bring many times more dollars into the veterans health care
program than it would ever cost to bring the suit in the first place.
Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. The date of this letter is today, June 15. It is today.
Mr. OBEY. Did the gentleman from New York tell them about the
amendment he voted against yesterday? I bet he did not.
Mr. WALSH. That was not the point of the letter. The point of the
letter was do not use veterans medical care.
Mr. OBEY. The point of the letter is to cover their tails over there.
That is the point of the letter.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I thank the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the work of her committee on the
VA-HUD appropriations bill. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for all of his hard work.
This is an excellent bill for veterans, as is the rule, because it
provides an increase of $1.3 billion for veterans medical care next
year. It also matches the President's budget request for veterans
medical research and for the program that funds construction of State
nursing homes. And it makes sure that all veterans medical care dollars
that are collected stay within the VA. The President's budget proposed
returning, Madam Speaker, $350 million in third-party payments to the
Treasury. Under our bill, every dollar collected stays within the VA
system.
Contrary to what we may be hearing, there is no scheme in this bill
to stop this tobacco lawsuit from going forward. This bill prevents the
VA from diverting veterans medical care dollars from being used to pay
for this lawsuit. Whatever the merits of the lawsuit, the money should
not come from veterans medical care. The money can come from any other
VA account, including general operating and administrative expenses.
The Secretary should cut his own budget if he knew what was in it and
reduce administrative overhead and not raid the veterans medical care
accounts.
This is a good bill for housing as well, especially for individuals
with disabilities which has been a particular concern of members on
both sides of the aisle on the committee. In the past, Congress has
created a section 8 disability set-aside to earmark funds within this
larger account to help individuals with disabilities find suitable
housing. This year the President finally recognized the importance of
this set-aside. It took a while. This bill meets his request to provide
$25 million specifically for that purpose.
Further, this bill again contains important language regarding
section 811 housing for tenant-based rental assistance for individuals
with disabilities. Since there is an insufficient supply of available,
suitable housing, this bill requires HUD to spend 75 percent of its
fiscal year 2001 funds to build new housing units for individuals with
disabilities.
This is a good bill, also, for protecting the environment. This bill
provides an increase in funding for the Superfund hazardous waste
cleanup program. The $1.22 billion for the Superfund is an increase of
$2.5 million over the previous year's level. The Superfund program was
established in 1980 to help clean up emergency hazardous materials,
spills and dangerous, uncontrolled and/or abandoned waste sites. Too
much money has been spent on litigation, and now we are spending more
on remediation.
Also, this bill provides $79 million for the leaking underground
storage tank, or LUST program, to clean up hazardous wastes that have
leaked from underground storage facilities.
{time} 1000
This is $9 million over last year's level, and $9 million is to be
used to mitigate the problems with the underground storage tanks caused
by the presence of NTBE in our fuel supplies, another disaster out of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Finally, this is a good bill for scientific research, specifically
for the National Science Foundation, which marks its 50th anniversary
this year. With a small portion of Federal spending, this agency has
had a powerful impact on national science and engineering. Every dollar
invested in NSF returns many fold its worth in economic growth.
The NSF traditionally receives high marks for efficiency; less than 4
percent of that agency's budget is spent on administration and
management. To meet these goals in the NSF this year, the bill provides
a record $4 billion for the National Science Foundation, a $152 million
increase over last year. This is a good rule. It is a good bill. It
deserves our support.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Madam Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this floor extolling the
unprecedented economic prosperity and patting ourselves on the back for
this remarkable economy, but we ignore the reality of a housing crisis
that we have here in the United States. In fact, the economic
prosperity has worsened the housing crisis because fewer and fewer
people are able to really afford to even stay in their neighborhoods,
pay the real estate taxes, find affordable housing.
If we look at the shelters, we will find that they are bulging,
emergency shelters are bulging, and these are people who are working.
These are sometimes people who are making $20,000 and even more. And
this piece of legislation does virtually nothing to address that
problem.
We find that nationally 13.7 million households, that is a lot of
people, are living in substandard housing or paying more than half of
their income on housing. In Chicago, in my city, 35,000 families are on
the waiting list for the Chicago Housing Authority, for public housing;
and that will take 10 years to get through that list. Madam Speaker,
28,000 families plus are waiting for section 8 rental vouchers, and the
rental voucher program is closed. It will take 5 to 6 years to get
through that program.
The budget cuts from this year, not just under the President's, but
$100 million from the President's requested for public housing. It cuts
Hope 6, $10 million from last year. It cuts homeless assistance
funding. It cuts help for people, homeless options for people with AIDS
is even. And yet there are more people that need the service.
So we are going to serve even fewer people. This is a serious problem
that we are facing. We need to address it in this legislation. We are
far from achieving our goals. I would oppose the rule and support the
President in his pledge to veto this legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 7\3/4\ minutes remaining, and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, I have heard statements on the floor this morning that
says this is a good bill for veterans. I defy any of you to go before
any town meeting in this Nation and tell our veterans that this budget
makes up for the contract that we made with them.
We are not, my colleagues, fulfilling our contract with our veterans.
We have asked them to sacrifice during war. We asked them to sacrifice
in this budget process when we had deficits, and now we continue to ask
them to sacrifice when we have surpluses. That is not right.
This is not a good bill for our veterans. We are falling further and
further behind each year that we have a surplus, and we do not make up
for past injustices to our veterans.
This budget does represent the strongest request the administration
has ever made; but serious deficiencies are in this budget. Whether we
look at research, whether we look at our State homes, and whether we
look at Montgomery GI bill benefits, we simply have not fulfilled our
contract where our Nation's veterans.
[[Page H4496]]
Let me just tell everyone about research. Yes, we have fulfilled the
administration's request, but if we consider inflation and salary
increases, we have fallen behind another 10 percent in this vital
account.
We are 10 years after the Persian Gulf War, and we do not have either
a cause or a treatment for that affliction that is affecting hundreds
of thousands of our veterans. We need the research. We have the money.
Let us put this in this budget. The biggest emergency we now face in
our recruiting and in our retention of military is the lack of
educational benefits for our veterans. Today's Montgomery GI benefit is
$535 a month. It is not enough to pay for any bit of college that any
veteran wants.
This is an emergency, I will tell my colleagues. And I have an
amendment to deal with this later on in the discussion. And if we are
going to make our all-volunteer force effective, we need educational
assistance at a much higher level.
A whole coalition across this country agreed that this budget could
afford a Montgomery GI bill increase that would basically allow the
average commuter student to pay for three-fourths of his or her college
education. That would mean a rise under today's prices to $975 a month
for our GIs.
We can afford this amount of money. We must make that much money
available. Our budget today makes $535 available per month for college
education. This is not a recruitment tool. This is not an honor to our
veterans.
Let us see this as an emergency. Let us raise the Montgomery GI bill
benefit to at least the $975 a month that a broad array of
organizations has requested. Let us reject this budget. Let us honor
our veterans in the way they should.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Madam Speaker, I also want to compliment my chairman and my ranking
member. I serve on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies. There are a few disappointments with this bill. I have
expressed them before. I will express them again this morning.
I think because of the budgetary gymnastics that the majority party
has instigated here, our chairman and the leadership of this House,
they have had trouble adjusting to this. They have done a good job
apparently for veterans and, particularly, for medical care for
veterans. They have done some other good jobs, but I am concerned that
of all the people, the needy people in this country, this particular
bill does not address the empowerment zones. It is not funded at all.
This is the second year that this has happened. I want to know what
is going on here where for each year we cannot fund the empowerment
zone, which is supposed to be the one thing that is going to help us in
these distressed communities. We did not fund, as we should have
either, some of the other programs that are important in city
communities.
Now, someone has to take notice of this. In this year of surpluses,
we look back and we fail to try to empower people that are trying their
very best to use the resources that are given to them both by
government and the private sector. So it is very important that we look
at community development. City CDBG plans, we did not receive the
amount of money in CDBG that we should have in this day of fine monies
and good surpluses.
The Community Development Block Grant Fund is being raided by so many
other programs coming in; yet we did not fund it according to what was
promised to us by the Speaker and some other people.
Let us look at this budget, and we know it has some very good points,
but some of the flaws are very glaring; and I call our attention to
them once again, and that is community development going out into the
community, helping those people through the empowerment zones and
through the Brownfields initiative and those kinds of things.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the problem with this bill is that it is a
let's-pretend legislative document. It is the sixth time in a row that
a bill was brought to the floor which is not in shape to be signed by
the President.
Then it is said, ``Well, this is only the second step on the way; we
will fix it down the line.'' I mean, what that really says is, ``We
will not take the responsibility to produce a responsible bill;
somebody else at some other time will do it.'' That is a ``great''
message for this Congress to send out to the American people, somebody
else will fix our mistakes. That is a really big confidence builder. I
think we ought to be able to do better.
Secondly, with respect to the comments about veterans. I have a
letter from four veterans organizations, the AMVETS, the Disabled
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and the acting deputy
executive director of the VFW; and what that letter says is on behalf
of Members of AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars, we are fighting ``to oppose
efforts to stymie amendments by the Department of Justice to advance
the lawsuit seeking to recover health costs associated with tobacco-
related diseases.''
It then goes on to cite the mistakes that the Congress has made in
the past, the very actions which that side of the aisle are defending,
and then says ``From that point forward, veterans have been denied
compensation for these disabilities. We urge you not to make the same
mistake again.'' And they recognize fully that you cannot run a lawsuit
unless you pay money to run the lawsuit.
Now, regardless of what the other side says, the game they have
played is they have said to the Justice Department, ``No, we are not
going to appropriate money for you to use to pursue the tobacco suit,''
and you are denying them the opportunity to use money from any other
agency to bring money back into those agencies. That hurts veterans
beyond repair.
Madam Speaker, for the Record, I include the following letter:
The Independent Budget,
A Budget for Veterans by Veterans,
June 13, 2000.
Hon. David R. Obey,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Obey: On behalf of members of AMVETS,
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America and
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, we are writing
to oppose efforts to stymie attempts by the Department of
Justice to advance a lawsuit seeking to recover health care
costs associated with tobacco-related diseases. This matter
is properly before the federal courts, where it will be
decided on its merits. It is inappropriate for Congress to
attempt to undermine this litigation by manipulating the
resources needed to support this action.
Two years ago, much to the outrage of veterans across the
country, Congress accepted a proposal by the Administration
to terminate compensation for veterans with tobacco-related
disabilities. This was done despite the fact that smoking had
been sanctioned, subsidized, encouraged, and part of military
life and culture for decades. Many in Congress refused to
listen to the arguments we put forth to counter this
proposal, in large part due to the temptation to use the
totally unrealistic cost savings for other purposes unrelated
to veterans' needs. The needs of sick and disabled veterans
were cast aside as soon as potential paper savings of $15.5
billion were transferred to help fund pork barrel highway
projects in that year's transportation bill. From that point
forward, veterans were denied compensation for these
disabilities. We urge you not to make the same mistake again.
We also believe it is important to note that the same
statute that terminated compensation benefits for disabled
veterans with tobacco-related diseases (the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century--PL 105-178) called on the
Government to address this issue by proceeding with the
lawsuit to recover costs of veterans' health care for
tobacco-related diseases. Section 8209 of the law (copy
attached) called on the ``Attorney General or the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, as appropriate, [to] take all steps
necessary to recover from tobacco companies amounts
corresponding to the costs which would be incurred by the
Department of Veterans Affairs for treatment of tobacco-
related illnesses of veterans, if such treatment were
authorized by law.'' The same section called on Congress to
authorize the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses upon
recovery of such amounts. Any attempt now to block the
lawsuit is in direct contradiction of the sense of Congress
expressed in a previously
[[Page H4497]]
approved statute to help cover the cost of, and, provide
health care for these veterans.
While the outcome of this litigation is in doubt, it does
provide a possible avenue to help defray the enormous health
care costs, past, present, and future, associated with
tobacco-related disabilities. We urge you to resist efforts
to attempt to restrict funding for the Department of Justice
to continue this important litigation.
Sincerely,
David E. Woodbury,
Executive Director, AMVETS.
Gordon H. Mansfield,
Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
David W. Goman,
Executive Director, Disabled American Veterans.
Robert E. Wallace,
Acting Deputy Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this is an open rule, so any Member that wants to
offer any amendment that complies with the rules of this House may do
so under this process.
The VA/HUD bill which this rule makes in order provides an increase,
an increase of $8.2 billion over last year and adds funding to a number
of important programs, including veterans medical care, veterans
compensation and pensions, section 8 housing, safe drinking water,
clean water, state air grants, EPA research, pollution control grants,
the National Science Foundation and NASA.
Those of us who do not care for the tobacco provisions can vote to
strike them. That is the beauty of this wide open rule. That is the
fairness of this wide open rule.
At the same time the bill funds these priorities, it lives within the
parameters of the budget resolution. This balance of fiscal and social
responsibility deserves our support. I urge a yes vote on the rule and
the bill.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, here we go again.
Every year the Majority party underfunds affordable housing in the
appropriations process and every year the President and Secretary Cuomo
are forced to negotiate for every last family in an omnibus bill.
Unfortunately, it looks like we are headed down this road again.
The VA-HUD bill before the House is cut $6.5 billion below the
President's request and the President will rightfully veto this bill in
its present form.
Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot about ``Compassionate
Conservatism'' in the press--but there is no compassion in this bill.
Programs under VA-HUD benefit some of our nations most needy citizens
and this bill does them wrong.
This bill provides no new funds for elderly housing, for homeless
assistance grants, for Housing Opportunity for People with AIDS, or for
Native American block grants.
Madam Speaker, the people who benefit from these programs don't have
high paying lobbyists representing them on Capitol Hill. They don't
have 527 groups pushing their special interests. They are simply needy
Americans who need housing assistance.
Furthermore, this bill cuts public housing anti-drug programs and
capital and operating grants $120 million below last year's level.
Madam Speaker, this country spends far too many resources on putting
drug offenders behind bars. Cutting drug prevention efforts in public
housing just does not make sense.
Furthermore, this bill does damage to the enforcement of our nation's
environmental laws by funding the EPA at $282 million less than last
year.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad bill because it fails
to adequately fund housing assistance for impoverished working men and
women and it ignores America's housing crisis. Despite the shortage of
affordable housing that plagues many cities and rural communities, this
bill fails to fund America's tremendous housing needs. Even worse, this
bill cuts several billion dollars from last year's budget for many
important affordable housing programs.
Why did the Republicans design a bill that cuts housing assistance
for low-income working men and women? Why do Republicans ignore
America's obvious shortage of affordable housing? Quite simply, they
cut housing assistance to pay for tax breaks to the wealthiest
Americans. In March, they voted $123 billion in tax breaks for the
best-off one percent of all taxpayers--those with an annual salary
exceeding $319,000. Just last week, the Republicans voted to repeal the
Estate Tax--a giveaway of another $50 billion to the wealthiest 2
percent of Americans. This GOP plan would provide about $10 billion to
America's wealthiest 400 families.
In sharp contrast, this bill denies housing assistance to Americans
living in Section 8 housing and public housing, who on average earn an
annual $7,800. It denies housing assistance for senior citizens on
fixed incomes. It forces working men and women to choose between
housing, health care, food, and other basic needs.
This GOP budget is unlivable for us in San Francisco. Compared to
President Clinton's requested budget, HUD estimates it reduces housing
assistance for San Francisco by $10.9 million and denies affordable
Section 8 housing vouchers to 458 San Francisco families. It denies
housing help to 234 San Francisco residents who are homeless or are
living with HIV/AIDS.
This GOP budget is also unlivable around the country. At the full
Appropriations Committee, the Ranking Democrat, Rep. Mollohan, offered
an amendment to invest an additional $1.8 billion that would provide
assistance across the country. I voted for this amendment. The
Committee Republicans rejected it. This amendment would have increased
investments to build new affordable housing; provide new affordable
housing vouchers; provide housing to the homeless; operate, build and
modernize public housing; promote community economic development;
provide housing and services to seniors, individuals with disabilities,
and individuals with HIV/AIDS. Americans need this assistance and this
bill falls short.
I oppose this Rule because it restricts our opportunities to improve
the underlying bill. The GOP denied us a fair House floor vote on our
amendments to increase housing assistance. Our amendments could have
transferred this into a more bipartisan bill that President Clinton may
have signed. Since Clinton has promised to veto the current bill, the
GOP's decision ensures a veto and ensures we are wasting our time. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 182, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 278]
YEAS--232
Aderholt
Archer
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
[[Page H4498]]
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--182
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--20
Abercrombie
Armey
Barrett (WI)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Cummings
Danner
Doolittle
Hinojosa
Houghton
Kaptur
Lofgren
McKinney
Nadler
Sawyer
Serrano
Thurman
Vento
Visclosky
Young (FL)
{time} 1033
Ms. RIVERS and Mr. DEUTSCH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, during the vote I was unavoidably
detained with my staff concerning issues related to the FY 2001 Energy
and Water Appropriations bill. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye'' for rollcall vote 278.
____________________