[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 106 (Thursday, July 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4680-H4718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in House Report 107-164
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at
the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered
read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question.
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 Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2620
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of
Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for
sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,
corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfers of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107, chapters 11, 13, 18, 51,
53, 55, and 61); pension benefits to or on behalf of veterans
as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. chapters 15, 51, 53, 55, and
61; 92 Stat. 2508); and burial benefits, emergency and other
officers' retirement pay, adjusted-service credits and
certificates, payment of premiums due on commercial life
insurance policies guaranteed under the provisions of article
IV of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 (50
U.S.C. App. 540 et seq.)
[[Page H4681]]
and for other benefits as authorized by law (38 U.S.C. 107,
1312, 1977, and 2106, chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61; 50
U.S.C. App. 540-548; 43 Stat. 122, 123; 45 Stat. 735; 76
Stat. 1198), $24,944,288,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $17,940,000 of the
amount appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to
``General operating expenses'' and ``Medical care'' for
necessary expenses in implementing those provisions
authorized in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990,
and in the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. chapters
51, 53, and 55), the funding source for which is specifically
provided as the ``Compensation and pensions'' appropriation:
Provided further, That such sums as may be earned on an
actual qualifying patient basis, shall be reimbursed to
``Medical facilities revolving fund'' to augment the funding
of individual medical facilities for nursing home care
provided to pensioners as authorized.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I really wanted to take this moment as we begin full
consideration of this bill to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their work and the improvements that we
have been able to afford the citizens of our country in this fiscal
year 2002 appropriation bill for the Veterans Administration, the
Housing and Urban Development Department, the Environmental Protection
Agency, NASA, and the National Science Foundation.
The bill has many good points. Certainly the National Science
Foundation increase, the President asked for an increase, we provided
over an 8 percent increase in this budget. And even in smaller
programs, like the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which has
such a fine track record in communities across our country, a
respectable increase. But I have to say that in other accounts this
particular bill does not have adequate funding.
Other Members have talked about HUD's housing programs, and without
question the reductions in public housing modernization, decreased by
15 percent; and community development block grants, every single
community in this country affected by that cut by 6 percent; and
homeless assistance down by nearly 9 percent. We still have not
completely solved that problem across our country. The impact on
Americans as a result of this underfunding of the HUD programs will be
felt from coast to coast.
The bill eliminates the popular AmeriCorps program. HUD's Rural
Housing and Economic Development programs have been eliminated.
Empowerment zones, Enterprise communities, and the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Grant Program I will talk about in a moment.
Now, I wanted to say a word about the Environmental Protection
Agency, also a reduction, and as important as the reduction, the shift
in responsibility for enforcement to the States. In the case of Ohio,
my home State, The Washington Post reported just a couple weeks ago
``Nowhere are the problems cited by the EPA studies of State
enforcement performance more in evidence than Ohio where so much
backlog remains. During the past 2 years, 72 percent of Ohio's plants
and refineries had violations of the Clean Water Act, a third of the
plants were in violation of the Clean Air Act, and over a third of the
factories were found to be operating with expired permits required
under the Clean Water Act.''
So we have to be conscious that as this bill is considered, there are
serious imperfections that are contained within it.
Others have referenced the veterans portion of the budget. We hear
lots about the greatest generation; books have been written, movies,
and we are about to build the World War II memorial, one of the most
important pieces of legislation I have ever sponsored here in this
Congress. Yet the Veterans Medical Care budget, the budget that will
actually go to care for those that the Nation says it cares so very
much about, underfunded by nearly $.5 billion over what the
administration needs in order to accommodate the lines that are out
there in hospital after hospital.
So as the bill moves forward, I really do look forward to working
with the chairman and the ranking member to perfect it.
And I just wanted to say a word about the amendment I will be
offering later this afternoon, because I heard my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), come to the floor a little earlier and
speak against the drug elimination program in public housing, and my
friend and colleague from Ohio is a former FBI officer.
I was very surprised to hear that. But I have to tell him that
perhaps the part of Ohio he represents is not like my own. But his
position is going to hurt Cincinnati, it will hurt Dayton, it is going
to hurt Toledo, it is going to hurt Steubenville, and it is going to
hurt Lima, because in fact the drug elimination program goes to the
very heart of communities where drug lords and this drug trade took
control of people living under the most vulnerable of circumstances.
The local policing forces, sometimes out of sheer racism and
sometimes out of the fact that when they wore a uniform they were not
accepted inside those projects, did not patrol the projects. My
colleagues can go across this country, in places like Chicago, where I
personally visited, and see people on the roofs with repeating
shotguns, with repeating rifles, at a certain time of day. If a drug
deal was coming down on the street, a mother could not leave that
project and go buy a bottle of milk because the drug lords were
controlling the projects. Now, if we have not lived under that
situation, we cannot appreciate what it really means.
But the amendment I will be offering will be to continue the drug
elimination program in public housing at a level of $175 million,
unlike this bill which zeros it out. And, in fact, our amendment will
actually cut the program by nearly half from what was existing last
year.
But to do this across America is truly a serious mistake.
{time} 1700
Crime has been going down in our country. Why should we do any less
than President Reagan, the first President Bush and President Clinton?
Mr. Chairman, I again thank the chairman and ranking member and look
forward to perfecting this bill as it moves along.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
readjustment benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by law (38 U.S.C.
chapters 21, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 39, 51, 53, 55, and 61),
$2,135,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That expenses for rehabilitation program services and
assistance which the Secretary is authorized to provide under
section 3104(a) of title 38, United States Code, other than
under subsection (a)(1), (2), (5) and (11) of that section,
shall be charged to this account.
veterans insurance and indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 19; 70 Stat. 887; 72 Stat.
487, $26,200,000, to remain available until expended.
veterans housing benefit program fund
program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
38 U.S.C. chapter 37, as amended: Provided, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, as amended: Provided further, That during fiscal year
2002, within the resources available, not to exceed $300,000
in gross obligations for direct loans are authorized for
specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $164,497,000, which may
be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
education loan fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $1,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. 3698, as amended: Provided, That such costs, including
the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of
direct loans not to exceed $3,400.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $64,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $72,000, as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 31, as amended:
[[Page H4682]]
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That funds made available under this heading are
available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans not to exceed $3,301,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $274,000, which may be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``General operating expenses''.
native american veteran housing loan program account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 37, subchapter V, as
amended, $544,000, which may be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``General operating expenses''.
guaranteed transitional housing loans for homeless veterans program
account
For the administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
transitional housing loan program authorized by 38 U.S.C.
chapter 37, subchapter VI, not to exceed $750,000 of the
amounts appropriated by this Act for ``General operating
expenses'' and ``Medical care'' may be expended.
Veterans Health Administration
medical care
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, and domiciliary facilities; for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, including care and treatment in facilities
not under the jurisdiction of the department; and furnishing
recreational facilities, supplies, and equipment; funeral,
burial, and other expenses incidental thereto for
beneficiaries receiving care in the department;
administrative expenses in support of planning, design,
project management, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the department;
oversight, engineering and architectural activities not
charged to project cost; repairing, altering, improving or
providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes under
the jurisdiction of the department, not otherwise provided
for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary employees
and purchase of materials; uniforms or allowances therefor,
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; aid to State homes as
authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1741; administrative and legal
expenses of the department for collecting and recovering
amounts owed the department as authorized under 38 U.S.C.
chapter 17, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq., $21,281,587,000, plus reimbursements:
Provided, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $900,000,000 is for the equipment and land and
structures object classifications only, which amount shall
not become available for obligation until August 1, 2002, and
shall remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided
further, That of the funds made available under this heading,
not to exceed $500,000,000 shall be available until September
30, 2003: Provided further, That of the funds made available
under this heading, not to exceed $3,000,000,000 shall be
available for operations and maintenance expenses of medical
facilities: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall conduct by contract a program of recovery
audits for the fee basis and other medical services contracts
with respect to payments for hospital care; and,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302(b), amounts collected, by
setoff or otherwise, as the result of such audits shall be
available, without fiscal year limitation, for the purposes
for which funds are appropriated under this heading and the
purposes of paying a contractor a percent of the amount
collected as a result of an audit carried out by the
contractor: Provided further, That all amounts so collected
under the preceding proviso with respect to a designated
health care region (as that term is defined in 38 U.S.C.
1729A(d)(2)) shall be allocated, net of payments to the
contractor, to that region.
Amendments Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a series of amendments, and I ask
unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Obey:
General Provisions
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
``Sec. 427. Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to reductions in rates after
June 30, 2001), is amended by adding after the table the
following:
``In the case of taxable years beginning during calendar
year 2002, the preceding table shall be applied by
substituting `39.1%' for `38.6% '.''
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health
Administration
In the paragraph ``Medical Care'', strike
``$21,281,587,000'' and insert ``$21,581,587,000'' in lieu
thereof.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public Housing
Capital Fund
In the paragraph entitled ``Public Housing Capital Fund'',
strike ``$2,555,000,000'' and insert ``$2,837,000,000'' in
lieu thereof.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
After the paragraph entitled ``homeless Assistance Grants:
insert the following new section:
``SHELTER PLUS CARE RENEWALS
``For the renewal on an annual basis or amendment of
contracts funded under the Shelter Plus Care program, as
authorized under subtitle F of Title IV of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, as amended, $100,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That each Shelter Plus
Care project with an expiring contract shall be eligible for
renewal only if the project is determined to be needed under
the applicable continuum of care and meets appropriate
program requirements and financial standards, as determined
by the Secretary.''
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Programs and
Management
In the paragraph entitled ``Environmental Programs and
Management'', strike ``$2,014,799,000'' and insert
``$2,021,799,000'' in lieu thereof.
At the end of the paragraph entitled ``Environmental
Programs and Management'', insert:
``: Provided further, That the on-board staffing level of
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance shall be
maintained at not less than the level authorized for this
Office as of December 31, 2000''
Corporation for National and Community Service
Strike the paragraph following the center head entitled
``National and Community Service Programs, Operating
Expenses'' and insert the following new section:
``(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National and
Community Service (the ``Corporation'') in carrying out
programs, activities, and initiatives under the National and
Community Service Act of 1990 (the ``Act'') (42 U.S.C. 12501
et seq.), $311,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2003: Provided, That not more than $50,000,000, to remain
available without fiscal year limitation, shall be
transferred to the National Service Trust account for
educational awards authorized under subtitle D of title I of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).
Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Is there objection to consideration on the amendments en bloc?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 50 minutes to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and myself, the opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. Chairman, let me explain what this amendment is all about.
I served in the legislature with a fellow by the name of Harvey
Dueholm, who was a retired farmer, probably the single best legislator
I ever knew. He had a number of pithy observations of life and politics
in this country. One of the things he said regularly is that one of the
problems with this country is all that too often the poor and the rich
get the same amount of ice, but the poor get theirs in the wintertime.
That is certainly the case with respect to the tax bill which this
Congress passed a number of weeks ago. To correct that, I am trying to
offer this amendment today along with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Evans) and let me explain what it is we are trying to do.
When the House voted on the tax bill, it voted on it separately
before we even had a budget. That meant that, in effect, Members of
this House were being shielded from the responsibility to make public
choices about the trade-offs that were wrapped into that tax bill.
We were never allowed the opportunity to explain in explicit terms
what the size of that tax bill meant in terms of our ability to, for
instance, deal with long-term shortfalls in Social
[[Page H4683]]
Security, to deal with long-term shortfalls in Medicare, to deal with
problems of short-funding in education or any other field.
I make no apology for the fact that I believe that it is more
important for us to shore up Social Security than it is for us to give
people a $300 refund check.
I make no apology for my belief that it is more important for us to
shore up Medicare long term than to provide a $53,000 tax cut to the
wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country.
I make no apology for the fact that I oppose the idea that we ought
to cut in half the rate of increase we have had in Federal support for
education over the past 5 years.
I make no apology for my belief that veterans are not receiving the
health care they need in this country.
I make no apology for my concern about the lack of adequate shelter
for some of the poorest children in this country.
I make no apology for the belief that we ought to have stronger
environmental enforcement and that we ought to be willing to pay for
it.
I think all of those priorities are a whale of a lot more important
than providing the tax cut that we have provided to the wealthiest 1
percent of people in our society who make more than $330,000 a year.
So what this amendment tries to do is to make this Congress finally
make specific choices about specific tax cuts versus specific funding
programs. It is my belief that there is nothing wrong with cutting in
half the tax cut that goes to people who make more than $330,000 a year
so that we will have some money left on the table to provide what this
amendment tries to provide, which is a $300 million increase in funding
for veterans' health care and the various increases that I described
previously in my statement to this House.
We are going to be providing well over $300 million in additional
funds under this amendment for housing. We are going to be providing
funds for Federal EPA enforcement to restore the positions that were
cut for Federal enforcement. We are going to be restoring partially the
funding for the Corporation for National Service. We pay for that by
simply cutting in half the tax cut that was provided to the wealthiest
1 percent of people in this society.
Mr. Chairman, I bet that at least two-thirds of the people in that
top 1 percent, if asked, would say that they would rather that we
provide adequate housing and adequate health care for veterans than to
keep whole their new-found tax bonanza.
I have a sign on the wall of my office, and every time a group comes
in asking for money, which is about 18 times a day, before they sit
down and talk about what they want out of Uncle Sam, I make them read
the sign on the wall which says this: ``What is there that you want me
to do for somebody else that is more important than whatever it is you
are going to ask me to do for you today?''
Mr. Chairman, I believe in a Judeo-Christian society. That is the
fundamental question we ought to be asking ourselves. I believe if we
ask that question of the folks who came in to lobby for those tax cuts
for the most privileged people in this society that a whole lot of them
would say, ``We do not mind if you scaled our tax cut back just a
little bit so you can provide to the least fortunate people in society
or, in the case of veterans, to the people who decided that they would
be willing to risk everything for somebody else.''
Mr. Chairman, that is the choice that we are attempting to have the
House make here today. I recognize that it is an unusual procedure
because this is not in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and
Means, but I think doing the right thing is more important than
jurisdictional dunghills.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue
to reserve his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York rise in opposition to
the amendment?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition; and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in cosponsoring the amendment he is offering.
The Obey-Evans amendment will provide substantial increased funding
for veterans' medical care and other important programs.
I urge my colleagues to support the Obey-Evans amendment to address
the significant shortfalls in funding for veterans' health care in the
committee's bill.
I believe a $1.2 billion increase in veterans' medical care funding
is fully justified. I have prepared an amendment to provide this
increase.
There are many challenges that the VA will face in the near future.
The VA must continue to honor its commitment to our most vulnerable
veterans with the most serious disabilities. It must meet its growing
infrastructure needs. Impending clinical staff shortages, including
nurses, the VA's largest employee group, and the rising cost of
gasoline plaguing areas around the country are among those challenges.
It is clear, however, that this House is not prepared to approve this
$1.2 billion increase today. An increase that will be provided by the
Obey-Evans amendment is needed. Long before President George Bush
promised Americans a tax cut, we made a commitment to honor those who
served and defended this Nation in its most dire hours. It is now our
duty to make sure that our obligations are paid back to them. Our
amendment will do this.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the same amendment that the gentleman
from Wisconsin offered in the full committee. It was considered out of
order in the full committee, and he is without question on message. He
stays on message. I recognize that. I congratulate him for that, but I
think the message is wrong.
The message should be that the President had an agenda to bring to
the Congress. He brought it to the Congress. We had debate on whether
or not the American taxpayer was paying too much money. The debate was
resolved by Congress. The House and Senate voted to cut the tax rates
that individual taxpayers pay. The people who pay the most money got
the largest tax cut, the people who pay the least amount of taxes got
the least tax cut, and those who do not pay taxes did not get any tax
cut. I think that is pretty logical, and people can understand that.
Mr. Chairman, what we are charged with doing today is the Congress's
primary role, which is creating a budget and spending taxpayers' money.
We have an allocation. It is the allocation provided to us by the
budget resolution and the Committee on the Budget in consultation with
the Committee on Appropriations which handed down our allocation, and
we have to live with that. That is our allocation.
Mr. Chairman, we have provided funds for almost every one of the
areas that the gentleman would otherwise supplement funds, and we think
that the funding is right.
I will close by saying I think this is the right formula for spending
in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
{time} 1715
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey-
Evans amendment. I do so because some of us said several months ago
when we were debating the budget that we knew we were going to get to
the point when we started talking about appropriations, there would be
the same hue and cry because we knew then that you cannot get blood out
of a turnip. We knew that a big tax cut would take away the possibility
of providing the resources that we needed to care of the needs of our
people.
And so here we are with one of the biggest debts that we have, and
that is the debt that we owe our veterans, the debt that we owe the men
and women who have given the last measure of everything that they had
to give. Now we
[[Page H4684]]
come and tell them that there is no water at the well, that there is
not enough money to provide the needed services.
People in my community right now are gearing up for public hearings
next week to talk about which one of our veterans hospitals will get
closed. Will it be the Lakeside? Will it be the West Side? Will it be
Hines? Will it be beds eliminated? Will it be mental health services
that they cannot get?
And so I join with those who say if we have any responsibility, Mr.
Chairman, it is the responsibility to fully fund medical services for
the Veterans Administration. For those men and women who have given so
much, at least we can give them a little.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding
time and for bringing up an amendment that gets to the heart of
everything that we have been talking about in Congress for the last
couple of months.
Let me begin by citing three words: priorities, priorities,
priorities. In the United States today, we have by far the most unequal
distribution of wealth and income of any nation on Earth. The
wealthiest 1 percent of the population owns more wealth than the bottom
95 percent. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. The
CEOs of major corporations now earn over 500 times what their workers
earn. Yet a few months ago it was the wisdom of the President of the
United States and a majority of the Members of Congress that the
richest 1 percent, those people who have a minimum income of $373,000 a
year, need to have, over a 10-year period, hundreds of billions of
dollars in tax breaks. That is what the President and the Congress
said.
Some of us disagree. Some of us think that it is more important that
we adequately fund education in this country so that every young person
has the opportunity to succeed in this country. Some of us think that
it is absurd that the average young person who graduates from college
today ends up $20,000 in debt because we have cut back, over the years,
Federal aid to education.
Some of us think that it is absurd that 1 week after the President
signed the tax bill and the huge tax breaks for the rich, that 1 week
later people on his Social Security advisory committee suddenly
announced that we may have to cut back on the cost of living allowance
for people on Social Security. Tax breaks for billionaires, but we do
not have enough money to adequately fund Social Security.
In my State and all over this country, home health care agencies are
having a terrible time and have received huge cuts in taking care of
some of the oldest and most frail people in this country. Visiting
nurses are unable now to do the job because this Congress, several
years ago, savaged Medicare. We do not have enough money to take care
of the old and the frail, but we do have enough money to provide huge
tax breaks for billionaires.
In the United States today, we remain alone among industrialized
nations in not having a strong prescription drug benefit program for
our seniors. In Vermont and all over this country, elderly people do
not know how they are going to pay for their prescription drugs. They
are forced to choose between food and heat and their prescription
drugs. We do not have enough money to provide strong prescription drug
benefits. Let us support this important amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this measure, the VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. I urge my colleagues
to support the committee's funding in this measure.
This legislation does provide $51.4 billion in funding for the
Department of Veterans Affairs and that is an increase of $4.3 billion
over last year's level. Included in that amount is a total of $21
billion for veterans health care. That is an increase of $1.2 billion
over fiscal year 2001 levels, matching the request in the President's
budget.
Mr. Chairman, as our veterans continue to age, they find themselves
certainly in greater need of medical care with each passing year. While
the increase for medical care does fall somewhat short of that
advocated by some of the veterans service organizations in their annual
budget reports, this amount is an historical increase. Moreover, it is
refreshing to see the new administration demonstrate a commitment to
ensuring that our veterans are going to receive adequate funding for
health care. That element was sorely lacking in the prior
administration which consistently submitted flat-lined budgets.
I would note, however, that unlike the last several years, some of
these new funds need to find their way to the veterans networks up in
the northeastern part of our country, particularly in New York. Due to
the post-VERA formulas, the VISN which contains my congressional
district remains the only one in the country which finds that its
funding continues to be cut on an annual basis despite the increased
funding nationally. That lack of funding takes place in spite of the
fact that VISN 3 has a greater percentage of specialty care patients
and otherwise unfunded mandates such as hepatitis C vaccinations. We
have had to rely on emergency transfers by the Secretary of the VA to
make up for a portion of the difference.
Given that the new chairman of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs and I share the same vision, I am concerned that the arbitrary,
capricious and flat-out discriminatory policy of the last few years in
distributing the funds that are available should be corrected. I am
requesting that the Committee on Appropriations reconsider the VA's
funding allocation formula for VISN 3.
Given that, I note that H.R. 2620 does provide a badly needed 16
percent increase for the Veterans Benefits Administration to help
mitigate the backlog in veterans' claims which has now resulted in
multiyear delays in getting new compensation claims approved. Our
veterans have served their country when called. It is unconscionable
that many now pass away while waiting for that backlog of legitimate
claims to be approved.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for providing $300 million for
short-term repairs and improvements to our aging medical facilities
that was in legislation passed by the House earlier this year, a total
of $371 million for VA medical research, and over $100 million for
veterans State extended-care facilities.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, this measure is sound legislation. It
provides adequate funding for so many areas in need and deserves the
full support of our colleagues.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on Rules was considering the form of
the rule under which we would consider this appropriations measure, the
gentleman from Wisconsin sought to have this amendment made in order.
Unfortunately, it was not made in order.
Despite the fact that this amendment will not be voted on, I am
pleased that the gentleman has offered it and was allowed to offer it.
It is important because it puts into perspective the choices that we as
a Congress have to make.
Not very many months ago, Mr. Chairman, this Congress passed a $1.6
trillion tax cut. That simply means that $1.6 trillion over the next 9
or 10 years has been taken out of general revenues for this country.
This amendment looks at that reality and it looks at what section of
our population most benefited from that tax cut. In fact, the top 1
percent of income earners receive about 37.6 percent of that tax cut.
It is that top 1 percent that was the greatest beneficiary of that $1.6
trillion tax cut--those people who make an average of $1.1 million a
year. The Obey amendment looks at that reality and then
[[Page H4685]]
looks at the underfunding in this bill and says that this would be a
fair way to correct this underfunding. It seems proportional to
calibrate that tax cut to that top 1 percent a little bit. That
generates enough revenues to fund some of these terribly underfunded
accounts in this bill and leaves a little bit left over for some other
bills.
That is what the Obey amendment does. It takes .5 percent of the tax
cut for the top income earners, which $1.3 billion (which gives you
some estimation of how much money they are earning) and redirects it to
some real people programs. That is a real priority and those are real
choices and that is what this amendment does. It clearly identifies the
problem areas in this bill.
With that $1.3 trillion, the amendment would increase funding for
veterans medical care. It would increase it by $300 million. The
amendment would also address the housing needs of low-income and
disabled citizens. First, it would add $282 million to the public
housing capital grant account, bringing that account to just over $2.8
billion, and while this remains below last year's funding, it does get
it closer. Then funding would also be provided for shelter plus care
grants. These grants combine low-cost housing with treatment and
support services.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. It takes money from
where it can be afforded and gives it to those who need it most. I
appreciate the gentleman offering it.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for all of his hard
work on this bill. I want to underscore to those listening that this is
a $4 billion increase in spending in VA-HUD.
Having listened to the arguments advanced by the other side of the
aisle, it now becomes clear why Vice President Gore lost Arkansas and
lost Tennessee, because he decided rather than advancing the ideas that
can bring us together, they decide to fight the typical class warfare
argument. Tax cuts for the rich has been repeated time and time again
on this floor. They keep saying that 1 percent of the wealthiest
Americans are getting the biggest advantage under the tax cut. But you
will notice none of those on the other side of the aisle will tell you
that a person, say, earning $300,000 a year pays about $120,000 in
taxes.
{time} 1730
They do not tell you the burden that that person carries to fulfill
the bills we are passing on the floor today. I think the gentleman from
New York (Chairman Walsh) has done a phenomenal job in trying to meet
the priority needs of this Nation. If you look throughout the bill you
will see increasing in funding for AIDS programs, homeless programs,
military and other vital missions of this country.
Now, if the other side of the aisle believes that this tax cut is
such a bad idea, I urge them to rally their supporters together and get
their supporters to remit their checks, their Treasury checks, back to
the Treasury and allow them to spend it as they will. I doubt that one
person will step forward and sign the back of their Treasury check,
whether they make $100,000, $50,000 or $20,000, so it can be spent in
reckless abandon on this House floor.
I know this is going to be a fight about priorities, and I know this
is going to be a fight about George Bush's tax cut, but, in my heart, I
believe we can do both. I believe that a family trying to fit braces on
their children's teeth needs a refund. I believe that people advancing
an opportunity to maybe finally take a vacation need a refund. I
believe people preparing to buy a washer-dryer could use a refund.
The other side wants to refund money to people who never paid the
taxes because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
I would suggest to Members, pay attention to this bill. Focus on the
good things that it does. Recognize that there is $4 billion of
increased spending on priorities, and avoid the shrill rhetoric of the
other side when they call this tax cut for the rich a reckless scheme.
We are balancing the budget. We are preserving Social Security. We
are finally increasing, if you will, the contributions to that account
to make it solvent. We are working on prescription drug coverage for
the seniors. We are working on a number of issues that will make this
country stronger. But we will never be strong as a Nation if we
continue to try to beat each other up over silly sound bites designed
for the next election, rather than the business on the floor.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which
will shave just a tiny bit of the tax cut to the top 1 percent of
wealthy people in this country in order to provide more funding for
veterans and for other essential needs.
But I want to make a larger point in reference to some of what I
heard from the other side of the aisle. We are told by the Social
Security Task Force that, after 2016, we will have to either raise
taxes or cut benefits to pay for these Social Security bonds that will
be redeemed then. Well, those will be about $200 billion a year. The
tax cut we passed a few days ago will be about $400 billion a year at
that time.
So do not tell us we cannot keep faith with our senior citizens to
redeem our Social Security bonds and pay out the full benefits. It
would only cost to do that half the cost of the tax cut you just gave
to the richest people in our country, and, in effect, taking away, if
you listen to the rhetoric of the Social Security Commission, from all
the people that depend on Social Security.
It is not difficult. We do not have to raise taxes. We just have to
be careful in what we do and not do the tax cut for the richest 1
percent, if we want to redeem all those Social Security bonds and pay
all the benefits. We do not have to destroy Social Security in order to
save it. We just have to not pass the Republican tax cuts.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, express my
appreciation to the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from West
Virginia, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee, for the very respectable job they have done in putting
this bill together. I think that we all need to recognize that.
But the problem we have with this bill, which is a very real and
serious and definite problem, is based upon the fact that the tools
they had with which to operate were inadequate. The funding number that
they were given is too low. The reason for that is the leadership here,
at the request of the President, insisted on passing a massive tax cut
before we had a budget, before priorities were established. That was a
basic and fundamental mistake, and it is one for which we are going to
pay dearly, not just this year but in every succeeding year over the
course of the next decade.
How are we going to pay? We are going to pay by inadequate provision
for those people who defended this country in some of the most
difficult and darkest times in our history, our veterans. We are not
providing adequately for their health care, and we are not providing
adequately for the general maintenance that many of them need. We are
not doing that because we do not have the resources in this bill.
We are not providing enough housing for people who need housing all
across America. We have a $20 billion housing deficit today that is not
being adequately addressed, and we cannot address it because of the
inadequate funding level in this bill.
People need housing. There are so many people in my district, I am
sure, and in every district represented by every Member here, of people
who cannot find adequate housing because housing is too expensive and
their incomes are too low.
The gentleman from Florida was up here a little bit earlier in the
context of this debate talking about questions that have been raised by
his constituents concerning the relationship between toxic and
hazardous waste and the exposure of people to toxic and hazardous waste
and their health conditions, debilitating, declining health conditions.
What is the relationship?
There is an unquestionable relationship between people who have been
exposed to toxic and hazardous waste and decline in their health in
forms of cancer, attacks of the endocrine system, in
[[Page H4686]]
developmental disabilities. And this bill, unfortunately, because it
has an inadequate funding level, does not deal with the problem of
enforcement of toxic and hazardous waste laws. Therefore, people in
Florida and other places all across the country are being exposed to
toxic and hazardous substances which are destroying their health.
There is not enough money in this bill to deal with the problems of
drug control in public housing. We fund hundreds of millions of dollars
to deal with the problem that we think we have in South America,
sending money down there to kill South Americans, but we do not provide
enough money to save the lives of Americans in public housing. The
priorities are inadequate, and it is because of inadequate funding
because of that tax bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not reduce the size of the tax cut
for a single middle-income American. The only persons affected on the
tax side by this amendment are people in the top 1 percent of earners
in this country who make more than $330,000 a year.
I am sure that they are all fine people. That is not the issue. I do
believe that they can afford to have a slightly smaller tax cut. I do
believe they do not need an entire $53,000 tax cut, which is on average
what they will receive under the tax package that was passed. I do not
believe that they need that full tax cut as much as sick veterans need
better medical care, or as much as low-income children need to get out
of rat traps and into decent housing, or as much as we all need
adequate enforcement of our laws to protect the environment.
I am amused by one of the previous speakers who talked about the tax
rebate and who it ought to go to. This has nothing whatsoever to do
with the tax rebate. People are going to get their tax rebates,
although I would note I did get a complaint from a reporter in my
district because his grandmother, who died a year and a half ago, did
get a tax rebate in the mail, and the letter was labeled: Blank name,
``deceased.'' With all due respect, I do not know many people whose
last name is ``deceased.''
I would prefer to see to it that what tax rebates we do give go to
live veterans in need of health care, go to the families of live
children who need better housing, and go to those Americans who are
sacrificing in order to provide national service in their own
communities; and I make no apology for that.
I find it interesting that somehow people talk about class warfare. I
think the middle class has already lost, if there has been a war,
because the CBO shows that the top 1 percent of earners over the past
20 years has had their after-tax income rise by $414,000, while the
middle class has had their income rise over that same period, their
after-tax income, by about $3,400. Some victory for the middle class.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, if people think veterans are
getting adequate health care, fine; oppose the amendment. If you think
poor kids are getting adequate housing, fine; oppose the amendment.
This issue is not whether you are for or against tax cuts. This is an
issue of who you think has a greater need, who you think has a greater
requirement for assistance from Uncle Sam.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I will be prepared to
yield back the remainder of the time when the gentleman is prepared to
yield back the remainder of his time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close the debate, and I will honor the gentleman's agreement that I
will yield as soon as he does.
Mr. Chairman, this is a phony choice. We do not have additional funds
available to us to spend, and we cannot in the process of creating this
legislation amend any existing legislation, and that is what the
gentleman has asked us to do.
The debate over tax cuts is over. In fact, the check is in the mail.
These funds are not available to us to spend. We have an allocation. It
is a substantial amount of money. The subcommittee has met for hundreds
of hours in hearings and in planning to develop this bill, as a
subcommittee and full committee. The bill passed the full committee on
a voice vote. I think it has strong support within the Committee and
within the Congress; and, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would
reserve my point of order and ask Members to continue to support this
bill as it stands after having made the choices that we have made.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a
ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard further on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fully consistent with the
rules of the House. The House would have had the opportunity to vote on
it if the Committee on Rules had waived the rules of the House in the
same manner that they waived those rules for consideration of this bill
as a whole. So I believe the amendment is consistent with the rules of
the House. However, the manner in which those rules have been exercised
I recognize has effectively blocked us from having this amendment come
to a vote. I regret that, but I cannot do much about that.
{time} 1745
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The
amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2,
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the National Estuary Program
and for providing additional funds for the program in the VA-HUD
appropriations bill; and I would like to engage the chairman in a
colloquy.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to the chairman and
members of his subcommittee for their hard work and continued support
of the National Estuary Program, NEP. Congress recognized the
importance of preserving and enhancing coastal environments with the
establishment of the National Estuary Program in 1987. The NEP's
purpose is to facilitate State and local governments' participation in
``Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans'' for threatened and
impaired estuaries.
While the NEP has been successful in developing these CCMPs, we have
increased the number of estuaries in the National Estuary Program
without matching funding. This has the necessary affect of slowing our
progress in restoring these estuaries.
In my district, for example, in New Jersey, an NEP called Barnegat
Bay exists. The Barnegat Bay watershed drains from a land area of
approximately 550 square miles. Over 450,000 people live in the
Barnegat Bay watershed. That population actually doubles in the summer
as people flock to the New Jersey shore. The continued economic health
of the Barnegat Bay watershed is dependent upon the continued health
and the national beauty of its waters. The Barnegat Bay estuary is not
only a vital component of New Jersey's tourist industry, but an
important natural resource that supports populations of commercially
and recreationally significant fish, as well as rare and endangered
species.
The Environment Protection Agency plays a vital role and collaborates
with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit
institutions, industries, and citizens to address these estuaries'
environmental issues.
The NEP received $20 million to develop its CCMPs. This is not enough
to
[[Page H4687]]
fund the implementation of the CCMPs for now 28 estuaries. That is why
we must increase funding for the National Estuary Program to protect
these vital natural resources and support the efforts of the local
communities to implement their CCMPs.
The Senate bill currently has $25 million for the estuary program. I
would urge the chairman to work with conferees of the Senate and House
to increase the level of funding for the National Estuary Program.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for
his pioneering efforts in developing this very important national
program and for his continued efforts to ensure the National Estuary
Program remains a strong program to protect our national estuaries for
the future.
I agree that this program has been successful with developing and
maintaining local government, nonprofit, industry, and volunteer
support from within the States where these estuaries are located. That
is why we have increased funding this year for this program to $20
million, a $2 million increase over last year. I would be glad to work
with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey to assure that this
very important program continues to protect and enhance our precious
national estuaries.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 7, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to submit this
amendment to the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. This amendment would
appropriate an additional $1 million to the Veterans Health
Administration.
I had another amendment that would come later, but I am not going to
offer it in the interest of the time of all of the membership of this
body, but I am determined to try and do something about the hypocrisy
that sometimes abounds in this Congress.
I want to make it very clear that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee; the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the
chairman of the full committee; and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, have done the very
best that they can within the budgetary boundaries under which they
must operate.
The arguments that we are making do not go, in the final analysis, to
class warfare, they go to: What is it that motivates us as individuals
to want to take care of the needs of this country? It is commonly said,
``The mark of a great country is not what it does for those with the
most, but for what it does for those with the least.'' This bill
clearly does not do enough, having argued that the persons who have the
responsibility of perpetrating it have done what they can, but it does
not mean all of us did everything that we could.
Public housing is grossly underfunded in this bill. This underfunding
harms the people who depend on Congress to help them live meaningful
lives. Without it, many could be evicted from their homes and forced
into the streets. Congress, this institution, I think, tends to forget
that we are talking about real people, about real families; people who
depend on all of us, all 435 here and the 100 in the other body, to do
something about their problems, to look out for them and to work to
ensure that their lives are not wasted away in degradation and poverty.
It is not an abstract issue of refunding a few hundred dollars to
people who do not really need the money. Let me address the gentleman
from Florida, my dear friend and colleague, that said that not many
would send theirs back. I would send mine back in the morning if I knew
that it was going to provide for veterans; if I knew that it was going
to provide for public housing in this country that is desperately in
deterioration and in need of assistance from all of us.
Let me give as an analogy what transpired in the great State of
Florida that I am a fifth generation person from. Living there all of
these years, we came to a point where we decided 2 years ago that we
were going to give the taxpayers, me, my mama, everybody else in
Florida, $1 billion back, while our schools were deteriorating, while
our election system was putrid, and while all of the circumstances
surrounding those who are impoverished in our State were continuing to
deteriorate. Ostensibly, each one of us was supposed to get $260. I
never got my check. What it was was hocus-pocus. It was a whole bunch
of mysterious accounting; but yet, when the legislature convened this
year, there was a $1 billion shortfall, and still the schools are
crumbling, still the schools are overcrowded. Yes, the poor are
desperate.
The gentleman from Wisconsin was correct. None of us need not make an
apology at all about caring, and every man and woman in this
institution cares about veterans. But how did we address them? We did
not address them. According to the major veterans' organizations, this
bill provides less than one-half the amount that is considered
necessary to ensure decent health care for our Nation's veterans.
Veterans put their lives on the line. We come down here and say that
all the time. They put their lives on the line for all of us; they left
their families for us.
I traveled with my Republican colleagues very recently to Normandy
and we stood there and saw what veterans have done on behalf of all of
us, and there was not a man or woman among us, and it was a bipartisan
group, that did not leave there teary-eyed, mindful that we were
standing on the shoulders of those 9,000 people, including countless
others, who gave us this right to come here and try to do something for
everybody, not just for a handful of people in our country.
Yet, we are not willing to pay even half of what veterans should
receive.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am told that this allocation of $1 million was
recently in a second or third analysis of the funds available. The
Congressional Budget Office found approximately an additional $1
million that had not been spent. The gentleman has proposed that we
spend it in veterans' medical care. I cannot think of a better place to
put this found money, so we will accept the amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh). I thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Mollohan), the ranking member, and maybe the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Foley); and I can use it on the 45th Street Veterans
Administration Building.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in order to take time, because apparently
I will again not have the opportunity, to speak on a matter of very,
very critical importance to many of my constituents, and to
constituents all across the country. We have tried for many years to
have the Congress act on a particular measure of importance to our
Nation's honor.
Before the war, my colleagues will recall that the Philippine Islands
were a United States protectorate, a possession. It had been in this
status for 42 years. When the war came about, President Roosevelt
issued a military order on July 26, 1941, in which he invited the
citizens of the Philippines to enlist in the Army and to join forces
with the United States to fight the enemy. Nearly 200,000 Filipinos
responded without hesitation to defend their homeland and to defend the
flag of the United States.
From 1941 to 1945, thousands of Filipino soldiers fought alongside
American soldiers. They fought in every major battle in that area. They
endured years of captivity as prisoners.
[[Page H4688]]
They lost their lives defending our values and our sense of freedom.
Based upon the promises made to them by the United States Government,
these veterans expected when the war ended that they would be treated
the same as all other veterans of World War II. General McArthur
reaffirmed that they would be treated like all other veterans.
Inexplicably, in 1946 the Congress broke that promise to the Filipino
veterans by revoking their full benefits by passing Public Law 70-301.
It is this act of Congress that we have been seeking for years to
overturn. We have taken a few measured steps forward, but I rise today
to call attention to this issue, because we should have included $30
million to provide for the health care of these veterans. That is the
least that they are entitled to.
So I would hope that in the course of consideration of this bill and
others like it in this House and in our respective committees, that we
will find it possible to accord these few thousand Filipino World War
II veterans, who are still surviving, the benefits that they are
entitled to have as veterans who fought with our American veterans in
the World War II battlefields.
{time} 1800
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the assistance of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman, over the past months and years to
address what has become an important and divisive area in our district,
and that is our national environmental policy on contaminated sediments
and, specifically, EPA's policy on contaminated sediments in the Hudson
River.
By now, many in Washington and throughout the East Coast have heard
of this controversy. I happen to represent the district in which the
proposed 40 miles of dredging would occur.
Let us remember, Mr. Chairman, the EPA, in the closing months of the
Clinton administration, proposed a massive environmental dredging
project that would drastically affect both the ecology of the Upper
Hudson River and the economies of the communities along its banks. This
is a decision that the vast majority of the people in the communities
that I represent, who are directly impacted, are rightly concerned
about and concerned about the long-term impacts of any project and the
scientific basis for it.
As it is, for the past several years the committee report has
directed the EPA with respect to its policies on contaminated
sediments. Specifically, the committee report states, ``For fiscal
years 1999 through 2001, the Congress included specific direction to
EPA regarding the Agency's ordering of dredging or other invasive
sediment remediation technologies pending the National Academy of
Sciences' completion of a study intended to address dredging, capping,
source control, natural recovery, and disposal of contaminated
sediment, and comparing the risks of each technology.
``The committee notes that this study has been completed and
published, and to the greatest extent practicable, expects the Agency
to adopt as part of its own sediment remediation strategies those
guidelines as presented in the Academy report.''
Mr. Chairman, it is critical. It is critically important that the EPA
follow this direction and implement the NAS recommendations, which were
highly critical of community outreach efforts with respect to its
review of the Hudson River PCB contamination.
In fact, the NAS found the EPA community involvement process in the
Hudson to be a failure. Mr. Chairman, with EPA's cooperation, the NAS
recommendations will inject sound science into a policy on the Hudson
River that has unfortunately been driven by other agendas.
I want to remind everyone looking at this issue why I am concerned
about the EPA's dredging and landfilling proposals.
As background, the Hudson Valley residents, having twice now been
lied to or misled by the EPA, are understandably concerned about the
impact of the largest environmental dredging project in history on the
ecology of the river and the negative impacts on the region's economy.
First, in 1997, the EPA was forced to reveal that it was conducting
secret studies on the Hudson Valley farmland for siting of PCB
landfills, after many months of deliberately deceiving the public as to
the existence of those studies. They were looking, Mr. Chairman,
effectively, by virtue of eminent domain proceedings, to take the
valuable farmlands, the property, the homes of the residents that I
represent.
After this revelation and subsequent congressional hearings, EPA
officials committed to prevent this type of public deception from ever
happening again.
Sadly, and secondly, questions continue to exist on the logistics of
handling and disposing of 100,000 truckloads, 100,000 truckloads, of
PCB-contaminated sediment and the disruption it would bring to the
river.
When the EPA released its report and proposed remediation plan for
the Upper Hudson on December 12, 2000, Administrator Carol Browner and
other EPA officials broadly discussed the possibility of siting two
hazardous waste dewatering facilities at Moreau and Albany, New York.
EPA officials flatly denied that the EPA had gone far enough to propose
additional sites for such handling facilities.
On February 5 of this year, responding to a Freedom of Information
request by CEASE, a local grassroots organization, the EPA was forced
to release an internal memo identifying 12 such sites that the EPA was
looking at to create those facilities.
Mr. Chairman, it seems that, on the issues most sensitive to local
residents in this particular incident, the EPA's history indicates that
its preferred policy is to hide from the public. This is a serious
problem. It is important for my constituents in the 22nd Congressional
District, and I think for all New Yorkers, to have confidence that the
NAS scientific recommendations are properly considered.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an editorial from today's
Journal News located in downstate Westchester County, New York, that
points out that ``dredging would cause short-term elevations of PCB
levels downriver. . . . It would damage marshlands, which might not be
able to recover. And it might not, after all, thoroughly clean PCBs
from the riverbed.
``With that much doubt still lingering about the safety and
effectiveness of wholesale dredging, a limited approach sounds more
like sensible prudence than a sellout.''
Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Walsh) for his effort; and I would ask that all Members look
at this issue.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to also draw the attention of the Members of
this House to the Hudson River Superfund site. The Hudson River
Superfund site is the largest Superfund site in the Nation. It runs for
about 150 miles, from the Battery to the Federal dam at Troy.
It is a Federal Superfund site and a State Superfund site, for that
matter, in New York because of the fact that the General Electric
Company, over a period of several decades, dumped hundreds of tons of
polychlorinated biphenyls into the Upper Hudson River above that dam.
Most of these PCBs are now still concentrated in so-called hot spots or
concentrations of PCBs in this location around Fort Edward and a number
of other localities up above that dam.
This site is a hazardous waste site because PCBs are extraordinarily
toxic. They are toxic in the sense that they are known to be cancerous
in animals, and they are suspected to be and some would say known to be
cancerous in humans, as well.
PCBs cause cancer. They also attack the endocrine system. That is the
natural defense system of the body. It protects us against the invasion
of disease. That endocrine system is attacked by PCBs. It makes it much
more difficult for people to defend themselves against ailments and
causes a whole array of sicknesses to exist in bodies that are exposed
to these very toxic chemicals.
Furthermore, PCBs attack the developmental system, and they are known
to cause low birthweight babies and to cause a deterioration in the
intellectual ability of infants as the mothers have been exposed to
PCBs. So, Mr. Chairman, that is just a given indication of the
seriousness of this question.
[[Page H4689]]
For several decades, going back to in fact the late 1970s, both the
State of New York and the Federal Government have examined this
question. Over a period of time they have attempted to develop a
solution for it. At no time, except within the last 8 years, has this
been done in a very serious way.
However, over the course of the last 8 years, and particularly within
the last 6 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has developed a
plan to remediate much of the PCBs from the Hudson River in order to
protect people, particularly those located up in the upper river but
also those people who live in the lower river, from the damage that is
caused by the presence of these PCBs in the river.
Let me say parenthetically, that damage, of course, has resounded
throughout the ecological system of the Hudson River. Every form of
life, from the tiniest biota to the largest animals at the top of the
food chain, are affected with these PCBs; and anyone who eats any of
the animals out of the river, any of the fish, chemicals, anything that
comes out of the river, absorbs quantities of PCBs into their body.
The PCBs concentrate in the fatty tissues within the body. Those PCBs
concentrated in the fatty tissues are passed on to infants by the
lactating mothers of those infants, again giving an indication of the
seriousness of this particular problem.
The EPA now has developed a plan to deal with this issue. That plan
is to dredge the concentrations of PCBs, remove them from the river,
and reduce very substantially the level of this problem and the damage
it is causing to the environment and to human health.
Now, however, we receive indications from the new EPA in a new
administration that once again we may be facing inordinate and
irresponsible, unconscionable and unexplainable delays. It seems, it is
rumored, that this EPA, under this new administrator in this new
administration, is not going to follow through on the carefully
developed plan formulated by the Clinton administration EPA, formulated
by the scientists within the EPA, peer-reviewed by scientists outside
of the EPA, and found to be sound in virtually every detail.
In spite of all that, this EPA under this administration, with this
administrator, is backing away from the plan, we are told. How ironic
that is when one considers that this EPA administrator, when she was
the Governor of the State of New Jersey, repeatedly is on record saying
that she favored dredging the PCBs out of the river. Now, apparently,
she may be taking a different tune, apparently at the direction of the
White House.
I hope that that is not the case. This is a serious problem, and it
needs to be addressed intelligently and seriously.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from
New York.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) for his leadership on the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies in putting together this bill.
As a scientist, I am especially heartened by the funding increase
provided for the National Science Foundation. This bill funds NSF at
$4.8 billion, which is a 9 percent increase, $414 million over the
fiscal 2001 funding level.
By approving this funding increase for NSF, we in the House make
clear our understanding that the type of basic research in science and
engineering that is supported by NSF is vital, not only to our Nation's
continued economic leadership, but to continued increases in our
standard of living and, indeed, to the sustainability of that standard
of living.
In recent years we in Congress have been committed to doubling the
budget of the National Institutes of Health by 2003. We are justifiably
proud of that effort.
At the same time, we must also be aware that advances in the physical
sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering are
fundamental to the developments in medicine.
To give an example, the move to double the NIH budget is motivated
largely by the desire to cure cancer, among other serious diseases.
However, many of the tools used to diagnose and treat cancer, among
them x-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, and radiation treatments, come from the
world of physics.
Just yesterday I spoke to a research physician who pointed out that
much of his research today would have been impossible just 15 years
ago. The advanced tools that are now crucial to his work were developed
just recently from work done in physics.
We in Congress should have the goal of doubling the budget of NSF
over the next 5 years through 15 percent annual increases. Overall,
scientific and technical progress requires a balance between all of the
sciences, which requires that funding for NSF keep pace with the
funding for NIH.
I applaud the chairman and his subcommittee for recognizing that fact
by providing this substantial and well-justified funding increase for
NSF in this bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks and
for his leadership on all science issues in the House and for being a
strong advocate for science.
The subcommittee is acutely aware of the need for vigorous basic
research effort in this country, which starts with the work of the
National Science Foundation. Too often we overlook the importance of
basic research in the sciences and in engineering also because its
results are not always immediately applicable to tangible products.
Breakthroughs in medical research, on the other hand, are more easily
understood.
I would like to echo the gentleman from Michigan in saying that we
would do well to recognize the diversity of scientific endeavors that
contribute to medical advances. I find it telling that the recent very
noteworthy success of the human genome project, for example, was built
on cutting-edge research in computer science, chemistry and other
subjects of the kind supported by NSF.
If the resources were available to us, the subcommittee would support
an even greater increase in NSF funding than the 9 percent increase
over fiscal year 2001 that is in the bill. We feel, nevertheless, that
the increase is a strong start in guaranteeing that our Nation remains
preeminent in basic research for years to come.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Carson of Indiana
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Carson of Indiana:
In title I, in the paragraph relating to ``Veterans Health
Administration--medical care'', after the aggregate dollar
amount insert the following: ``(reduced by $16,200,000)''.
In title I, in the paragraph relating to ``Departmental
Administration--office of inspector general'', after the
aggregate dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by
$16,200,000)''.
Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides additional
funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector
General, and it will reap a manyfold return in cost savings and result
in a greatly improved quality of health care for American veterans.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is the second largest executive
branch agency. Yet this behemoth is monitored by an Office of Inspector
General staffed at one of the lowest levels among all 29 statutory
Inspector Generals when Inspector General staffing is compared to total
agency employment.
{time} 1815
The VA IG has a staff of 365 nationwide. If the VA office of the IG
was staffed at just the average ratio among the 29 statutory Inspectors
General, the staff would be 4,000 full-time employees. My amendment,
Mr. Chairman, would provide funding for an additional 110 full-time
staff on the IG's team and permit an acceleration of the IG's facility
assessment program from its current 6-year cycle to a more reasonable
3-year cycle.
A migration from the 6-year cycle to the 3-year cycle would enhance
the IG's
[[Page H4690]]
ability to determine the root causes of departmental management
inefficiencies. With proactive oversight, the VA Office of the
Inspector General can identify tremendous cost savings measures and
assure that taxpayers' dollars are put to their best use. In the end,
this will provide for smarter management, greater cost savings, and,
most importantly, better, more accessible health care for our veterans.
An accelerated proactive assessment cycle would likely yield savings or
redirect funds to better use in the billion dollar range.
In fiscal year 2000, the VA OIG staffed 369 positions at a cost of
$45 million and was able to demonstrate solid performance results,
including 338 arrests, 280 indictments, 247 convictions, 496
administrative sanctions, $302 million in funds put to better use,
$11.4 million in dollar recoveries, and $13.8 million in fines,
penalties, restitution and civil judgments. These savings were realized
under the 6-year assessment cycle, and a 3-year cycle would do so very
much more.
Mr. Chairman, let me assure my colleagues that I have long fought and
continue to fight for the enhancement of medical benefits for veterans.
As we consider adopting this amendment, I assure all of my colleagues
that, as the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigation of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I consider this
a true value of effective oversight, and I ask for their support of
this amendment. It is cost effective.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised, quite frankly, at this
amendment. I fully expected there would be more amendments adding
additional funds to the already precious dollars that are in VA medical
care, but this amendment would take $16 million out of veterans medical
care. This is money that goes toward surgical procedures, towards
pharmaceutical drugs, towards nurses and doctors, heat and lights, and
running these facilities. To hand over these funds to the Inspector
General's office, to me, just does not make good sense. So I strongly
oppose the amendment.
We have already provided the Inspector General with an increase of $6
million over last year, a 15 percent increase from in their fiscal year
2001 budget. It is also a $4 million increase over this year's budget
submission. This amendment would result in close to a 50 percent
increase in the budget. I suspect the Inspector General could not
handle that much money, they could not put that many people on, and
this money is dearly needed for veterans medical care. I would hate to
jeopardize the health of our veterans by reducing this already
substantial but certainly dear amount of money.
So I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Committee for 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, I respect very much the gentleman's
argument in terms of the amendment that I offered, and I realize that
on its face it does probably raise red herrings in terms of what I am
doing; that I may be taking away medical benefits from veterans in
favor of the Inspector General. But as I indicated in my opening
remarks, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is cost effective and it will
allow the expansion of Inspectors General to generate more money for
the Veterans Administration.
I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we engage in further
dialogue with the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and
see if we cannot work out this situation in terms of advancing the idea
that I have here in terms of trying to help the Veterans
Administration.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. CARSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. If the gentlewoman would be prepared to withdraw the
amendment, we would be happy to sit down and discuss this with her at
length, and with the authorizing committee, to see if we can address
her concerns.
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman has offered that, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
medical care collections fund
(including transfer of funds)
Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year in the
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund
under section 1729A of title 38, United States Code, shall be
transferred to ``Medical care'', to remain available until
expended.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38
U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2003, $371,000,000, plus reimbursements.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
In title I, in the paragraph under the heading ``Veterans
Health Administration--medical and prosthetic research'',
after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased
by $24,000,000)''.
In title III, under the heading ``National Aeronautics and
Space Administration--human space flight'', after the dollar
amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $24,000,000)''.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the Republican manager, the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the Democratic manager, my
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
First, I would like to recognize both the chairman and the ranking
minority member for their continued support for medical and prosthetic
research in the Veterans Health Administration. It is in great measure
due to their support and commitment that this bill has come to the
floor with approximately $20 million more than had been initially
programmed for prosthetic research.
Dating back to the spring, when I first contacted them and their
colleagues in the Committee on Appropriations, urging them to take the
necessary step that we began last year when the chairman similarly
approved my amendment to raise the funding of this very program, they
have once again responded affirmatively to my request that we increase
the funding for this extremely important research program.
Secondly, I would like to emphasize that this increase will assist
the VA research program in achieving the stability necessary for
successful research, one that can eventually achieve its full potential
for finding cures and treatments for many chronic and terrible
diseases. The VA research program is uniquely positioned to advance
diagnosis and treatment for conditions that particularly affect
veterans, including prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease,
Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, spinal cord injury, and aging-
related diseases. But I remind my colleagues that, ultimately, our
Nation as a whole is the beneficiary of research conducted by the VA.
Mr. Chairman, this generous increase would not have been possible
without the complete support of the chairman and the ranking member. I
believe in their commitment to this program and trust they will work
with the Senate in conference to secure up to the $391 million for this
program. I wish to note that our colleagues in the Senate have provided
a $40 million increase for this deserving program. I ask the chairman
and the valued ranking member for their commitment to work with their
Senate counterparts during conference to achieve the highest possible
funding for the VA medical and prosthetic research program.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H4691]]
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Illinois for his advocacy in this area. The bill provides $20 million
over last year's funding level for VA research, plus $30 million in
construction funds specifically for research facility rehabilitation.
Because the Senate has provided a higher funding level for VA
research in their bill, this account will be an issue in conference;
and we will take into account the views and concerns of the gentleman
from Illinois and the other Members who have expressed an interest in
increasing funding for this important account as we move forward.
I thank the gentleman for his willingness to withdraw his amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTIERREZ. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for
bringing this issue to the attention of the full House, and I want the
gentleman to know that it is certainly high on the priority list for
the chairman. He added $10 million in this account during the full
committee, and we have just heard him express his real support for
taking a strong look at it during conference.
I commend the gentleman for bringing it to our attention, and I
understand he is going to withdraw his amendment, but I just want to
assure him that both sides of the aisle are supportive and will support
him in conference.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for all their
work on this issue, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Are there any further amendments to this paragraph?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
medical administration and miscellaneous operating expenses
For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities, $66,731,000, plus reimbursements: Provided, That
technical and consulting services offered by the Facilities
Management Field Service, including project management and
real property administration (including leases, site
acquisition and disposal activities directly supporting
projects), shall be provided to Department of Veterans
Affairs components only on a reimbursable basis.
Departmental Administration
general operating expenses
For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of Department-wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and the
Department of Defense for the cost of overseas employee mail,
$1,195,728,000: Provided, That expenses for services and
assistance authorized under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(1), (2), (5)
and (11) that the Secretary determines are necessary to
enable entitled veterans (1) to the maximum extent feasible,
to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable
employment; or (2) to achieve maximum independence in daily
living, shall be charged to this account: Provided further,
That of the funds made available under this heading, not to
exceed $60,000,000 shall be available for obligation until
September 30, 2003: Provided further, That from the funds
made available under this heading, the Veterans Benefits
Administration may purchase up to four passenger motor
vehicles for use in operations of that Administration in
Manila, Philippines: Provided further, That travel expenses
for this account shall not exceed $15,665,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Foley
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Foley:
In title I, in the paragraph relating to ``Departmental
Administration--general operating expenses'', after the
aggregate dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by
$25,000,000)''.
In title III, in the paragraph relating to ``National
Science Foundation--research and related activities'', after
the aggregate dollar amount insert the following: ``(reduced
by $92,000,000)''.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, the veterans benefits
claim process in this country is a disaster. This disaster is not the
fault of the dedicated employees of the VA or Mr. Anthony Principi, the
new Secretary of Veterans Affairs, but rather the bulk of the blame
lies with the years of neglect and lack of planning AND foresight.
When a typical veteran in my State has to wait an average of 171 days
to get a response to a claim, no one can doubt that we have a serious
problem. Would any of us expect to wait 171 days after filing a medical
claim with our insurer before actually getting the check in the mail?
No one would. No American would wait. Yet this is exactly what our
national veterans have to face every time they file a benefit claim
with the Veterans Administration.
What is worse is that, according to the administration's own budget,
that 170-day wait may well exceed 270 days this year. That 100-day
increase in the claims turnaround time is estimated by the
administration even after the good chairman, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), has increased by a $128 million earmark in this bill
to alleviate that problem. In fact, recently, in our supplemental bill,
and I commend the gentleman from New York for aggressively pursuing
this problem, he provided another $19 million. So we are making
progress.
But let no one be mistaken, this is a crisis. Veterans in my State
and across the country sometimes die before their health or other
benefit claims can be processed.
{time} 1830
These claims stem from veterans who feel they have been unjustly
denied the benefits they are entitled to and deserve. For example, my
State of Florida has only one processing facility currently operating
with a 24,000 case backlog. The second largest State in the Union with
veterans residing in the State and only one processing facility.
My amendment will add $25 million to the VA general operating expense
account for the express purpose of hiring and training additional
claims processors. The increase would be offset by a similar amount
from the National Science Foundation's $3.6 billion research account
which the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and I will add, has generously
increased over last year's level by $292 million.
The amendment is not aimed at lessening the good that the National
Science Foundation does. But our rules require offsets, and this
becomes a matter of priorities.
The Foley amendment uses the NSF's polar and antarctic research
accounts as an offset. The base bill recommends $3.6 billion for
National Science Foundation research next year, an increase of over
$300 million. Taking $25 million from the NSF's already increased
account is far less significant than the additional claims processors
that the VA could hire with this additional funding.
This is a meaningful amendment which will make a significant dent in
the turnaround time for claims processing. This is a nationwide
problem, one that Secretary Principi and I have talked about. He has
personally stated this is his primary goal of fixing as new head of the
VA. Let us give him the funding he needs.
The amendment is about priorities. One of the highest priorities
should be taking care of those who fought the wars for us. Yes, these
are interesting times, and these are aggressive bills which I believe
seek to solve a lot of our country's problems. But at a time when our
Vietnam vets and Korean vets and World War II vets and Desert Storm
vets are being told to wait, we are increasing by $300 million monies
in accounts that probably could take a little bit of a reduction in
order to satisfy and help those who have sacrificed.
Again, focus on where the amount of money comes from, the NSF's polar
and antarctic research accounts as offsets.
I again thank the chairman and I do want to underscore the fact that
his committee and his chairmanship has brought a lot of great benefits
to veterans. I know help is on the way in a number of these other
areas, but I would urge Congress to accept my amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H4692]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would remind
my good friend and colleague from Florida that we are spending over $51
billion in the veterans' accounts this year. The entire science budget
for the National Science Foundation is under $5 billion. That is a ten
to one ratio. Obviously, one can see where our priorities are. They are
on our veterans, on providing for their benefits, on providing for
their health care, on providing for the administration that is a very
important and significant portion of the Federal budget.
Fifty billion for veterans, less than 5 billion for research. We all
know how important research is to the future of all Americans,
including our veterans. Make no mistake about it, the investment that
we are making in the National Science Foundation will resound also to
the veterans as it will with all members of the American society.
Besides, we have already increased this account by almost $146 million,
the President's request.
For the benefits administration alone we provided just under $1
billion, $955 million. We funded this bill at the President's request
which was an increase of $129 million over last year; $148 million if
we consider the supplemental funding we passed last week.
We have fully funded the VA's plan to hire 400 claims processors,
continuing our commitment to improve the claims situation as we
provided funds for 400 new claims processors just last year.
This is Secretary Principi's highest priority. He is focused on this.
He is asking for resources. He has a plan. Let us let him implement
that plan.
The VA cannot hire more people at this point. More money will not
translate to more people. The budget request for NSF's request by the
President was barely a 1 percent increase. We are doubling the National
Institutes of Health. It does not make sense to double the National
Institutes of Health without making dramatic increases also in the
National Science Foundation. It is the basic science, the math, the
physics that makes all of this possible, all of this research possible.
So we needed to make that increase, and we did. The subcommittee
stepped up to the plate and provided a 9 percent increase. The
amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) would cut nearly
one-third of our increase out of that budget, a situation which I
believe is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
The Nation's economy depends on the research conducted through NSF. I
strongly oppose this amendment. These funds coming out of NSF will hurt
the veteran just as much as if we cut them out of their own budget.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bad news is
the gentleman states the problem correctly, that there are large delays
waiting for these medical claims to be processed, to be considered. The
good news, however, is that the chairman addressed the issue in this
bill. It is contained in this bill.
The gentleman said let us give the Secretary the funding he needs.
Well, the chairman gave him the funding he asked for, which I assume is
the funding he needs. The President's request was fully funded at $146
million, a $146 million increase.
I think the gentleman should be pleased with the treatment of this
problem in the bill, and it is being addressed aggressively last year
with an increase of 400 new employees on task and 400 will be added as
a result of this bill.
The offset the gentleman proposes is absolutely terrible. We have
been working very hard during the last several years to increase NSF's
funding. The gentleman takes it from the NSF increase and, by my
computations, he is taking $92 million, which is about a third of the
increase that we are providing for NSF.
So, on the one hand, I think the gentleman raises a legitimate
concern. It is being addressed in the bill, however; and he should be
pleased with that. On the other hand, where he is taking the money it
is particularly difficult because that is an account that we are trying
to increase. It is very meritorious to increase, and the cut he takes
from that is really a horrendous cut that would be taken to NSF.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with some reluctance to oppose this amendment,
and the reluctance is that it is offered by my good friend the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). The gentleman is engaged in a noble
cause, but I will oppose it precisely for the reason that has been
specified before this evening: This amendment would decimate the
National Science Foundation's budget, particularly in the area of polar
research and the Antarctic.
We discussed just a few moments ago the work of the National Science
Foundation and how necessary it is to fund it at a level to keep pace
with the funding at the National Institutes of Health, because so much
of the work at the NSF is related to the work of the NIH in its battle
to fight various diseases such as cancer, diabetes and the many other
diseases that they are engaged in fighting.
In addition, the National Science Foundation is engaged in many other
areas of research. In regard to the polar and Antarctic research which
the gentleman from Florida seeks to cut, it is a unique research
program that tackles many problems which cannot be tackled anywhere
else in the world. For example, these research funds resulted in the
first discovery of the ozone hole, which alerted our whole planet to
the need to do something about chlorofluorocarbons and led to measures
in both industry and government to end our very large use of
chlorofluorocarbons; as a result we are beginning to see a shrinking of
the ozone hole.
In addition, because of the unique position at the pole, this is an
ideal spot for astronomy. From that position many stars can be viewed
that cannot be seen well from other areas of our planet.
The amount that the gentleman is proposing to take out of this
research budget is approximately one-third of the budget allocated for
that work. That is a severe cut. We discussed earlier the small amount
of the increase in the NSF budget compared to the NIH budget and
discussed the need to seek a doubling of the NSF budget. We are not
even close to doing that this year.
If we take even more money out, it would be a serious blow to the
budget of the NSF and to the scientific work that is carried out at the
National Science Foundation. All of us value that research and benefit
from it very, very directly. If I had the time, I could spend an hour
pointing out all of the benefits derived from the funds spent on the
basic research done by the National Science Foundation.
For these reasons, I urge that we vote ``no'' on this particular
amendment. I urge even more strongly that the sponsor withdraw the
amendment. I think his effort to help veterans is noble, but his
funding proposal would cause inestimable damage to the National Science
Foundation.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the gentleman from Florida to withdraw his
amendment so we do not engage in a vote which could be detrimental to
the National Science Foundation.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. The gentleman from Florida proposes to reduce research
funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) by $92 million and
funding for the Department of Veteran Administration's (VA) General
Operating Expenses account by $25 million.
For fiscal year 2002, this appropriations bill adds $4.3 billion to
VA's fiscal year 2001 budget of $47 billion, and increase of over 9.2
percent. That $4.3 billion increase is nearly equal to NSF's entire
budget. To this increase, the gentleman wishes to add $25 million by
taking $92 million from NSF's significantly smaller appropriation.
Each year when the VA/HUD bill comes to the floor, amendments are
offered that would strip NSF of funding to pay for other programs--some
worthy, others not. I believe that this practice is shortsighted. This
House has continually recognized the important role NSF and basic
research have played in our Nation's economic and technological
development.
NSF is the government's premier science agency. It supports cutting-
edge research to answer fundamental questions within and
[[Page H4693]]
across scientific disciplines. This research has helped fuel new
industries and jobs that have propelled economic prosperity and changed
the way we live.
Maintaining the Nation's leadership in science will require keeping
open the pipeline of new ideas and innovations that flow from
fundamental research. NSF is the Federal Government's only agency
dedicated to the support of education and fundamental research in all
scientific disciplines, from physics and math to anthropology and
zoology. Today's NSF-led research in nanotechnology, advanced
materials, biotechnology, and information technology are laying the
groundwork for the technologies of the future, and in the process
training the scientists, engineers, and technology entrepreneurs of
tomorrow.
While I agree with the Gentleman on the need to reduce the backlog of
VA benefits claims, I do not think that cutting the funding of the
Nation's premier science agency is the way to do this. Therefore, I
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be
postponed.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh), in a colloquy regarding funding for Hispanic-
Serving Institutions, known as HSI's, under the National Science
Foundation Education and Human Resources Program.
There are over 200 HSI's throughout this country that are enrolling
an ever-increasing number of Hispanic college students. Hispanics are
now the second largest minority in the United States. Many of these
students are the first generation Americans in their family to attend
colleges or universities. We need to encourage them to complete their
education and to enter fields like math, science and engineering, where
our country is experiencing a severe shortage.
The National Science Foundation is charged with the responsibility of
improving math, science and engineering education across the country.
To do this, NSF provides several competitive grant programs for which
schools can apply to train teachers, students and improve the quality
of their math, science, engineering and technology programs. Past
authorization language has required the NSF to target under-represented
populations. However, to date, Hispanic-Serving Institutions have
received less than 2 percent of the grant funding available.
Mr. Chairman, does the appropriations subcommittee chairman agree
that the NSF should be targeting under-represented populations such as
the HSIs?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINOJOSA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the gentleman from Texas
for bringing up this important issue.
As the gentleman knows, we have made every effort to increase the
budget for the National Science Foundation to the highest level
possible and spread those funds as broadly as possible among programs
throughout the Foundation. In this context, the subcommittee has placed
great emphasis on providing additional dollars for several programs
emphasizing math, science and engineering education.
Generally speaking, we in the Foundation should do all that can be
done to promote these programs at all educational institutions, but I
certainly agree with the gentleman that a special effort should be made
to target minority-serving institutions and in particular Hispanic-
Serving Institutions for enhancement of these important programs.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Will the chairman work with me and the leadership of
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to develop report language urging the
National Science Foundation to do more aggressive outreach and grant
solicitation amongst HSIs so that more of them can improve their math
and science programs to better educate Hispanic students?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with the gentleman
from Texas and his Congressional Hispanic Caucus to find ways to make
the grant programs funded under this bill more accessible to HSI's and
to encourage the National Science Foundation to work to increase the
number of HSI's participating in its grant programs.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh); and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
{time} 1845
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
national cemetery administration
For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations; and
hire of passenger motor vehicles, $121,169,000.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $52,308,000.
construction, major projects
For constructing, altering, extending and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, or for any of the purposes
set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102, 8103, 8106,
8108, 8109, 8110, and 8122 of title 38, United States Code,
including planning, architectural and engineering services,
maintenance or guarantee period services costs associated
with equipment guarantees provided under the project,
services of claims analysts, offsite utility and storm
drainage system construction costs, and site acquisition,
where the estimated cost of a project is $4,000,000 or more
or where funds for a project were made available in a
previous major project appropriation, $183,180,000, to remain
available until expended, of which not to exceed $20,000,000
shall be for costs associated with land acquisitions for
national cemeteries in the vicinity of Sacramento,
California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Detroit, Michigan:
Provided, That except for advance planning activities,
including needs assessments which may or may not lead to
capital investments, and other capital asset management
related activities, such as portfolio development and
management activities, and investment strategy studies funded
through the advance planning fund and the planning and design
activities funded through the design fund and CARES funds,
including needs assessments which may or may not lead to
capital investments, none of the funds appropriated under
this heading shall be used for any project which has not been
approved by the Congress in the budgetary process: Provided
further, That funds provided in this appropriation for fiscal
year 2002, for each approved project shall be obligated: (1)
by the awarding of a construction documents contract by
September 30, 2002; and (2) by the awarding of a construction
contract by September 30, 2003: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall promptly report in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations any approved
major construction project for which obligations are not
incurred within the time limitations established under the
preceeding proviso: Provided further, That no funds from any
other account except the ``Parking revolving fund'', may be
obligated for constructing, altering, extending, or improving
a project which was approved in the budget process and funded
in this account until one year after substantial completion
and beneficial occupancy by the Department of Veterans
Affairs of the project or any part thereof with respect to
that part only.
Facility Rehabilitation Fund
For altering, improving, or rehabilitating facilities under
the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans Affairs,
$300,000,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the funds made available under this heading
$30,000,000 shall be only for projects authorized pursuant to
section 2(b)(5) of H.R. 811 as passed by the House of
Representatives on March 27, 2001; and $270,000,000 shall be
only for projects achieving the purposes authorized in
sections 2(c)(1), (2), and (3) of H.R. 811 as passed by the
House of Representatives on March 27, 2001: Provided further,
That none of the funds under this heading may be used for the
construction of a new building unless a credible assessment,
approved by the Secretary, demonstrates new construction
would be more cost-effective than rehabilitating the existing
building.
construction, minor projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, including planning and
assessments of needs which may lead to capital investments,
architectural and engineering services, maintenance or
guarantee period services costs associated with equipment
guarantees provided under the project, services of claims
analysts, offsite utility and storm drainage system
construction costs, and site acquisition, or for any of the
purposes set forth in sections 316, 2404, 2406, 8102,
[[Page H4694]]
8103, 8106, 8108, 8109, 8110, 8122, and 8162 of title 38,
United States Code, where the estimated cost of a project is
less than $4,000,000, $178,900,000, to remain available until
expended, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is less than $4,000,000, of which $25,000,000 shall be
for Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES)
activities: Provided, That from amounts appropriated under
this heading, additional amounts may be used for CARES
activities upon notification of and approval by the
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That funds in
this account shall be available for: (1) repairs to any of
the nonmedical facilities under the jurisdiction or for the
use of the department which are necessary because of loss or
damage caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the HUD/VA Appropriation bill. I want to commend the chairman of the
subcommittee Mr. Walsh and ranking democrat Alan Molhan on the funding
levels provided for veterans programs by the bill.
This bill provides a 16 percent increase in funds for the Veterans
Benefits Administration. VA Secretary Principi proposes to use these
funds to hire and train 900 additional employees to address the
increased workload in the disability and education claims areas. The
increased workload is a result of an increased number of claims and
legislative changes to the adjudication process. Addressing this
backlog is an urgent task which the Secretary has attempted to confront
in a very forthright and open manner.
But, frankly, I am deeply concerned and dismayed about the blatantly
unfair criticism that blames him and the Bush administration for a
situation that clearly was the result of policies and practices in
place before he became VA Secretary. I share his concern about partisan
attacks that hold him accountable because this backlog has not yet been
resolved. I say to those who would make such criticisms that they
cannot absolve themselves of some of the responsibility. Congress
passed the Veterans Claims Assistance Act last year and that Act alone
required the VA to review over 50,000 disability decisions to assure
compliance with that act. In addition, the two previous VA Secretaries
had substantial opportunities to make the claims process more timely
and responsive to veterans, yet Secretary Principi faced a backlog of
over 500,000 disability claims and 130,000 education claims when he
took office. Sec. Principle is a good and honorable man who cares
deeply about veterans. He is responsive and an outstanding leader. The
criticism of him is unjustified, unfair and unwarranted.
As I noted, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a 16 percent increase
for the Veterans Benefits Administration. I cannot think of too many
Departments that have seen a 16 percent increase in 1 year. I believe
that this is probably as much money as could be productively used in
fiscal year 2002. This budget is a very good one, but we should not
assume that simply by increasing the budget these backlogs will
disappear overnight. The VA is already hiring employees using funds
they expect to receive in the supplemental appropriation bill. But it
takes several years for an employee to obtain the requisite skills
necessary to correctly decide a veteran's disability claim. While I
expect we will see progress, there is no magic wand that will solve
these matters overnight.
Mr. Chairman, on the health care side, the bill reported by the
Committee on Appropriations, and again I want to thank the chairman and
ranking member for their faithfulness to our veterans. This legislation
provide a $300 million increase in funds to funding bill H.R. 811,
which we passed earlier this year for medical facility rehabilitation
projects. I want my colleagues to understand that even though we have
not gotten Senate agreement yet on the Veterans Hospital Emergency
Repair Act, H.R. 811, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) are willing to fund this
new authorization. I think they break some very important ground by
their willingness to do this.
As the chief sponsor of H.R. 811, I can say that it is readily
apparent that even though the VA may need to tear down or declare
excess some of its aging facilities that are vacant and not needed to
serve veterans in the future, there is an urgent need to renovate
medical facilities throughout the country that will be serving veterans
for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the proposed budget for VA
facility repair and renovation has not come close to meeting the
documented needs of a system with an estimated value of some $35
billion.
An independent study by Price Waterhouse suggested that with a system
as valuable as this one, an annual investment of about $700 million to
$1.4 billion would be ideal. Unfortunately, VA budget proposals in the
past few years contained far less than this for capital renovation
projects. The changes in medical practice and technology demand that
facilities be modernized on a regular basis; and frankly we have
ignored that need in VA health care facilities in the last few budgets.
That is why all Members should be aware of the provision in the bill
pledging $300 million in capital construction funds to keep VA
facilities and the care they deliver up to date. This is the problem we
were attempting to address in H.R. 811 when we passed it earlier this
year, and this appropriations language likewise addresses it as well.
Again, I want to commend the gentleman from New York and all members of
the committee for supporting this funding.
The reported bill also includes substantial increases in the budgets
for state home construction grants, medical and prosthetic research,
and the national cemetery system. Coupled with a projected increase in
receipts from insurers, an increase of $1.2 billion over the 2001 level
would be provided for medical care. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee
is aware, the VA carried forward $1.3 billion from last year into the
current fiscal year. In addition, health care receipts are about 25
percent higher this year than last year, so that a total of $800
million in additional funds of medical care attributable to these
receipts is a realistic possibility.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is also fair to mention the issue of VA
managers diverting medical care funds in a manner that reached new
heights late last year. Of the $20 billion in medical care funds
provided for the current fiscal year, $6.2 billion was appropriated for
three items. Those three items are pharmacy (drugs), Hepatitis C care,
and long-term care. As we learned earlier this year from newly-
confirmed VA Secretary Tony Principi, VA doesn't need all of this $6.2
billion, and plans to spend $750 million of it on other health care
needs.
Given the VA's ability to reprogram sums as a large as this without
any explanation or authorization, it seems to me we need to take a much
closer look at how VA is spending its money and what it is currently
requesting. One of the themes I've stressed since becoming Chairman is
to hold VA officials accountable for the decisions they make and how
they spend taxpayer dollars. Thus, I think a one billion dollar
increase is defensible and generous if we're going to have officials
requesting funds for one purpose and then spending it one something
else altogether. In addition, I believe we will finally see the long-
awaited improvement in medical collections of around $200 million in
the current fiscal year, and that increase should carry over into
fiscal year 2002.
All in all, I believe this is a very good bill for veterans, one that
provides substantial increases where the funds will do the most good.
Given the demands by millions of veterans for a high-quality affordable
health care benefit, it is nearly impossible to say that higher
appropriations for medical care are unnecessary. But they is a very
good bill, and it keeps our pledge to maintain the quality for those
veterans now enrolled with VA for their health care. Mr. Chairman, I
urge all Members to vote for this bill.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to identify with the remarks of my colleague who
just spoke, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs,
[[Page H4695]]
and I wish to address the House in two capacities: one, as a friend of
the veterans, as a veteran myself; and, two, in relationship to the
amendment previously discussed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Foley).
The fact of the matter is I know of no better friends for the
veterans of America than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh). They both have very important
roles to play, the gentleman from New Jersey as chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from New York, who is
where the rubber meets the road, on the Committee on Appropriations.
We can do all the authorizing in the world, but it does not mean much
unless you follow up with appropriations. The gentleman from New York,
to his credit, time after time has been there for the veterans, time
after time has put more money in the budget to address very real
problems that must be solved if we are to fulfill our commitments to
the men and women who have worn the uniform of the United States
military.
I am very much aware of the delays in solving the claims processing
crisis. Indeed it is a crisis. On several occasions I have spoken to
the gentleman from New York about this. Others have, too. We have
always received the same answer: ``We will be there when we are needed.
Don't just judge us by our words. Judge us by our deeds.'' This budget
includes $128 million, an 11 percent increase, for the Veterans
Administration to address the claims processing problem. That deserves
our praise and support.
Now, we can always do more, but the fact of the matter is we are
doing more than what is adequate to address a very real, legitimate
problem. But to suggest that we take from another very sensitive area,
and this is where I put on my second hat, as chairman of the Committee
on Science, to suggest that we take money away from the National
Science Foundation, which even Ronald Reagan, in my early years on the
Hill, wanted to double funding for over a 5-year period, because he was
wise then and we are wise now; and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) is evidencing the wisdom of the Congress in providing additional
funds for the National Science Foundation.
I do not need to remind my colleagues that we have been through a
decade of unprecedented growth, quarter after quarter, year after year,
growth in our economy. It is a little bit soft right now, a little bit
shaky. People are concerned. I would suggest to my colleagues in the
House that the way to continue to move forward, to make sure this
economy keeps percolating is, one, to do what we have already done, cut
taxes to get money back into the pockets of the American taxpayer, and
so that they can help keep this economy humming, but secondly to invest
in appropriate science, to invest in the basic research that is so
essential for the continued prosperity in America. We did not get where
we have been these past 10 years, quarter after quarter year after year
of growth because we just wished for better things to happen. We got
there because we invested in science, and science has rewarded us with
unprecedented developments. The whole Internet economy, the whole
telecommunications industry growth, these are things that are products
of science.
So I would suggest that to acquire $25 million more for something
that is already being addressed in a very substantial way, $128 million
more in the Walsh bill, but to get that additional $25 million by
taking $92 million and, boy, talk about fuzzy math, it is tough to
understand and explain in this short time how that comes about, but to
take $92 million away from the National Science Foundation is just not
the thing to do. We can do what we should do in a responsible way,
continuing to provide more funding for the National Science Foundation
and do what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is proposing, more
funding, $128 million more to solve a very real problem, that is, the
backlog in the claims processing for the men and women who have served
our Nation so nobly.
I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership. I
want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for what he is continuing to do, to
make certain everyone clearly understands that our veterans are
uppermost in our minds. We have an obligation. We have a commitment. We
are going to meet it.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleague from New Jersey, my
chairman. I chair the Subcommittee on Health for the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. I too would like to commend the gentleman from New
York and the ranking member of this committee for their support of
veterans issues and particularly for improving the access veterans can
have to health care across the country.
But I would also like to come here this afternoon and thank my
chairman for working on another issue and it is one that is very
important to a community of mine back home, Hutchinson, Kansas.
Hutchinson is a community of just over 40,000 people. On January 17 of
this year, the city experienced a series of explosions caused by
natural gas that leaked into abandoned salt mines that migrated under
the community. People in Hutchinson woke up that day to headlines and
photographs demonstrating a major occurrence had occurred in this small
town. Explosions rocked the community for the next 2 days, and fires
continued to burn for the next 5 months. The explosions leveled two
downtown buildings, destroyed homes, hundreds of people were forced to
relocate, move their home and businesses, and tragically two people
died as a result of injuries sustained from this occurrence.
Just 2 weeks ago, another gas explosion occurred causing more damage
to the community, both physically and emotionally. Hutchinson has a
long history of salt production, resulting in hundreds of abandoned
mines underneath the city and the surrounding region. In order to
ensure that no natural gas further escapes and ignition occurs from
these mines, each must be located and properly capped to ensure safety.
Addressing this situation is vitally important to this community and
its future. It is an important priority for our country. Even President
Bush mentioned in his energy strategy this tragedy. I have requested
assistance from the chairman. This is the first time I have come to the
gentleman from New York asking for assistance in this manner. I was
anticipating being intimidated by the gentleman. He met me with
sympathy and empathy. I am very grateful for that kind of response. I
appreciate the gentleman indicating his willingness to assist and
provide support as this bill goes to a House-Senate conference.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to briefly respond to the gentleman, I
thank him for bringing this issue to my attention and to the attention
of the committee. This catastrophic loss that occurred to his
community, this devastating incident, seriously undermines public
safety and economic activity in this city and the region. I know his
concern is heartfelt. He has pressed this case before us. I will
continue to work with the gentleman from Kansas during the conference
to see what assistance we can provide to Hutchinson, Kansas. I thank
him for his hard work on behalf of his community.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in
a colloquy with the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies.
{time} 1900
Mr. Chairman, to address the serious shortage of suitable housing for
frail, low-income seniors, the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD bill included
authorizing language to provide a pilot program for up to three grants
for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial property into
assisted living facilities for the elderly. Unfortunately, in that year
the appropriation language did not allow HUD to issue a NOFA to
implement the authorizing language.
In fiscal year 2001, the necessary appropriation language was
included in the VA-HUD bill, and $7.5 million of Section 202 funds were
made available to provide for the pilot program of
[[Page H4696]]
grants for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial
property into assisted living facilities. Yet, upon issuance of the
NOFA, HUD rejected all applications for these grants.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today has again appropriated funds
for the conversion of eligible assisted living projects. I am concerned
that HUD will continue to ignore congressional mandates on this issue,
and I would ask the chairman if he would work with me in conference to
correct this problem so that we can expedite the previously authorized
pilot program for the conversion of unused or underutilized commercial
property into assisted living facilities for the elderly.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
issue to our attention and for the amount of energy and thought he has
put into this. We have discussed this at length, and I would be happy
to work with the gentleman as the bill moves forward to address the
issue prior to conference.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
chairman's consideration.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee. I want to commend the gentleman for the
robust increases he has included in H.R. 2660 for veterans health care
programs. I again want to reiterate to my colleagues that an increase
of $1.2 billion for the VA's Medicare account will go a long way toward
improving services for our veterans.
There is an area of particular interest to me I would like to discuss
the with the distinguished chairman, and that is the success of
Alzheimer's disease. I am proud to support a bill that will help to
improve the treatment of veterans that suffer from this debilitating
dementia.
As cochairman of the Congressional Alzheimer's Task Force, I am proud
of the clinical research the VA has been conducting on Alzheimer's
disease. As the chairman is aware, the VA has developed a very
promising model to treat Alzheimer's patients at the Bedford,
Massachusetts, VA facility. This model emphasizes a home-like setting,
making patients feel comfortable, instead of subjecting them to painful
and heroic medical interventions, and employs an interdisciplinary team
of clinicians, dieticians and therapists. All reviews of the Bedford
program have concluded that it provides better care than traditional
long-term care approaches.
It is my hope that, with the additional resources contained in this
bill, the VA will take concrete steps to examine successful Alzheimer's
programs such as the Bedford VA model and look to expand this approach
to other VA medical centers.
I will yield to the chairman on that issue.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for the passionate
leadership that the gentleman provides on that committee for our
veterans. He is always there to defend the interests of our veterans
and to make sure we meet the commitments we made to our veterans.
I would also like to thank him for his interest and support in
finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease. As the gentleman surely knows,
nearly 600,000 veterans are estimated to be suffering from brain
disease, dementia and related disorders such as Alzheimer's. I am in
fact a member of the task force, and I share his commitment to helping
patients and their families who are struggling with this condition.
As for the chairman's question, I believe that, yes, the VA should be
carefully examining the Alzheimer's programs it manages, identifying
promising models of care and then ensuring that successful models are
implemented at other medical centers. In this manner, all of our
veterans can receive the very latest treatment methods. Our veterans
deserve nothing less.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the distinguished chairman for his commitment to our Alzheimer's
patients, particularly to those who happen to be veterans, the 600,000
that he mentioned.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
parking revolving fund
For the parking revolving fund as authorized by 38 U.S.C.
8109, income from fees collected and $4,000,000 from the
General Fund, both to remain available until expended, which
shall be available for all authorized expenses except
operations and maintenance costs, which will be funded from
``Medical care''.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify or alter existing hospital, nursing home and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by 38 U.S.C. 8131-8137, $100,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Nadler:
In title I, in the item relating to ``Departmental
Administration--grants for construction of state extended
care facilities'', after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $4,806,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian
housing--housing certificate fund'', after the aggregate
dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by
$195,194,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian
housing--housing certificate fund'', after the seventh dollar
amount (relating to incremental vouchers), insert the
following: ``(increased by $195,194,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian
housing--housing certificate fund'', after the eighth dollar
amount (relating to amounts made available on a fair share
basis), insert the following: ``(increased by
$144,762,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian
housing--housing certificate fund'', after the ninth dollar
amount (relating to amounts made available to nonelderly
disabled families), insert the following: ``(increased by
$50,432,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--home investment partnerships program'',
after the aggregate dollar amount insert the following:
``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--home investment partnerships program'',
after the second dollar amount (relating to the Downpayment
Assistance Initiative) insert the following: ``(reduced by
$200,000,000)''.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide an additional
34,000 Section 8 vouchers, 10,000 of which will be reserved for
disabled families. In addition, the amendment would add almost $5
million to veterans' extended care facilities.
I wish we could offer an amendment for a greater number of new
vouchers, because the need is so great. Unfortunately, with such severe
cuts to so many important housing programs necessitated by the budget
resolution we passed earlier this year, it is difficult to find an
offset that would provide the funds necessary to do so. We must focus
the scarce resources in this bill on the areas of greatest need.
Therefore, the amendment offsets the increase in funds for additional
Section 8 vouchers and for the additional funding for veterans'
extended care facilities by removing $200 million from the Down Payment
Assistance Initiative which is an unauthorized part of the HOME
program. By postponing appropriations for this initiative until it is
actually authorized and until a number of concerns raised by local
mayors regarding the structure of the program have been addressed, we
will be able to use these funds immediately on chronically underfunded
housing programs.
Mr. Chairman, the Down Payment Assistance Initiative is not only
unauthorized, no committee hearings have been held on this initiative,
it is unclear how the program will be administered, it is unclear that
most low-income people would have sufficient income to be able to
utilize the program, and, frankly, we should hold hearings and we
should properly design and authorize this program, and then we will
know how much to appropriate for it. Meanwhile, we can better use these
funds on the chronically underfunded existing programs.
This bill makes dramatic and alarming cuts to next year's housing
budget,
[[Page H4697]]
yet the need for housing assistance is staggering. By HUD's estimates,
there are 5 million low-income families, almost 11 million people, who
have worst-case housing needs; five million families who spend more
than 50 percent of their income on rent or live in severely substandard
housing. None of these 11 million people receive any housing
assistance.
More importantly, there is not one local jurisdiction in the United
States in which a full-time, full-time, minimum wage worker can afford
the market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in his or her neighborhood.
A study of 70 metropolitan areas showed that someone earning the
minimum wage would have to work 100 hours a week to be able to afford
the market rent in those areas.
What do we say to the working people of this country when they work
endless hours, sacrificing time with their families, all in an effort
to provide for their families, and they still cannot afford a decent
place to live? We must not ignore these needs.
The Section 8 voucher program is one of the most effective and cost-
efficient means of eliminating worst-case housing needs. 1.5 million
families have been able to find affordable housing through the use of
Section 8 vouchers. Rental assistance allows families to enter the
private housing market and choose where they want to live. By reducing
housing costs, these vouchers can free up funds within the budgets of
low-income families for necessary expenses such as health and child
care.
Unfortunately, the Section 8 program is severely underfunded. In New
York City alone, there are nearly 200,000 people, 200,000 people, on
the Section 8 waiting list. Nationwide, the average wait for those
entering the Section 8 program is about 2 years; and in some places
people have been on the waiting list for over 10 years.
Over the last 3 years, Congress has gradually increased Section 8
vouchers by too low an amount, but it has increased it by 50,000,
60,000, and 79,000 in the last 3 years respectively. But with a
national waiting list of Section 8 vouchers being well over 1 million
families today, these increases are drops in the bucket. This bill
increases the number of Section 8 vouchers by only 34,000.
With so many people in need, it is not the time to reverse the
progress of the last 3 years. To add only 34,000 vouchers this year is
to actually cut the annual increase in vouchers by 46 percent.
This amendment will increase the housing certificate fund by $195
million to provide an additional 34,000 Section 8 vouchers, of which
10,000, as I said, will be targeted to the disabled. The remaining $4.8
million dollars in savings created by this amendment will be dedicated
to the State Extended Care Facilities Program to finance the
construction and renovation of veterans' nursing home and hospital care
facilities.
I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is a modest action,
given the shortage of affordable housing, but it is necessary to help
thousands of low-income families, while, at the same time, providing
resources to improve home care facilities for our Nation's veterans. By
increasing funding for programs targeted at a wide range of people,
from those with disabilities, to veterans, to those working to make
ends meet at low salaries, this amendment sends a message that all
people are deserving of the dignity and stability of a decent home.
I urge all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment is instructive because it shows
how difficult it is to find additional funds in this to reorder the
priorities in this bill.
The amendment would cut $200 million from funds that the President
has asked us to provide to help low-income families to become
homeowners.
Now we spend approximately $16 billion on Section 8 vouchers. We are
actually looking at a program that will allow individuals to use those
Section 8 housing vouchers to purchase a home. It is a pilot program.
We believe that the American dream still exists, and the President has
said not only should we try this pilot program with Section 8 vouchers
for mortgages but we should provide $200 million to low-income families
to help to make the initial down payment, that big chunk of money that
we all know is necessary to plunk down before you can make a deal with
a bank on the mortgage.
I cannot think of a better way, Mr. Chairman, to help families to
move from welfare to work and from renting to owning. This is the
President's major initiative in this bill, and I think we should honor
it.
What the gentleman does is he proposes to take all of that money, all
$200 million, and spend it in other areas of the bill. What he has
proposed is to provide 34,000 additional Section 8 housing vouchers,
and some 10,000 of those would go to disabilities.
I would submit that imitation is the highest form of flattery. That
is exactly what we did in the bill. He is just doubling it.
But the problem with that is, while we have done our very best to
provide new vouchers to help families in need of housing, we continue
to see those funds go unused. None of the funds we provided for new
housing vouchers in fiscal year 1999 or 2000 was actually used, and it
is likely that this will be the case again this year, since HUD has not
yet awarded the new vouchers that have been provided.
At the same time, public housing authorities continue to fail to use
the vouchers they already have. On average, PHAs are providing
fulfillment of only 93 percent of the vouchers that have been
allocated. Consequently, huge amounts of money continue to go unspent.
Last year, HUD recaptured over $1 billion in unused voucher funds,
money that would have funded 171,000 vouchers.
So I cannot support, Mr. Chairman, taking these funds that will help
poor families to buy their home, to get a piece of the rock, to get a
piece of the American dream, to deny them that, by putting it into a
program that HUD cannot possibly spend the money for.
What I urge is that we reject this amendment.
I submit for the Record a letter that I received in my capacity as
chairman of the subcommittee from the Enterprise Foundation, the
National Council of State Housing Agencies, the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National
Community Development Association supporting the HOME program and that
$200 million presidential earmark.
July 26, 2001.
Hon. James T. Walsh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, HUD, and
Independent Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned representatives of state
and local governments and non-profit community development
organizations thank you for increasing FY 2002 funding for
the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program to $2 billion
in H.R. 2620, the FY 2002 VA/HUD appropriations bill. We
strongly urge you to reject any House floor amendments to
reduce HOME funding.
As you clearly recognize, HOME is one of the most important
tools states and local governments have to respond flexibly
to their unique and diverse affordable housing needs. HOME
has consistently exceeded congressional expectations by
assisting families with incomes below the HOME limits,
leveraging significant public and private housing funds, and
sparking innovative solutions to a wide array of housing
challenges.
HOME's success in answering the nation's housing needs is
limited by a single factor--inadequate funding. Though
Congress authorized HOME at $2 billion when it created the
program in 1990, Congress has never appropriated that amount.
A HOME appropriation of $2 billion for the upcoming fiscal
year is barely enough to compensate for the loss of
purchasing power HOME has suffered since Congress first
funded it nearly a decade ago.
We agree that a number of federal housing programs need
more funding. HOME is one of the most deserving among them.
Please insist on at least $2 billion in HOME funds in FY
2002.
Sincerely,
The Council of State Community Development Agencies.
The Enterprise Foundation.
The Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
The National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies.
The National Council of State Housing Agencies.
The National League of Cities.
The National Association of Counties.
The National Community Development Association.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that Members reject the amendment.
{time} 1915
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the pending amendment?
[[Page H4698]]
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
grants for construction of state veterans cemeteries
For grants to aid States in establishing, expanding, or
improving State veterans cemeteries as authorized by 38
U.S.C. 2408, $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 101. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2002 for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred to
any other of the mentioned appropriations.
Sec. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2002 for salaries and
expenses shall be available for services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 103. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs (except the appropriations for
``Construction, major projects'', ``Construction, minor
projects'', and the ``Parking revolving fund'') shall be
available for the purchase of any site for or toward the
construction of any new hospital or home.
Sec. 104. No appropriations in this Act for the Department
of Veterans Affairs shall be available for hospitalization or
examination of any persons (except beneficiaries entitled
under the laws bestowing such benefits to veterans, and
persons receiving such treatment under 5 U.S.C. 7901-7904 or
42 U.S.C. 5141-5204), unless reimbursement of cost is made to
the ``Medical care'' account at such rates as may be fixed by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 105. Appropriations available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2002 for ``Compensation and
pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and ``Veterans
insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for payment of
prior year accrued obligations required to be recorded by law
against the corresponding prior year accounts within the last
quarter of fiscal year 2001.
Sec. 106. Appropriations accounts available to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2002 shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from title X of
the Competitive Equality Banking Act, Public Law 100-86,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable from ``Compensation and pensions''.
Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1920), the Veterans' Special Life Insurance Fund (38
U.S.C. 1923), and the United States Government Life Insurance
Fund (38 U.S.C. 1955), reimburse the ``General operating
expenses'' account for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus
earnings accumulated in an insurance program in fiscal year
2002, that are available for dividends in that program after
claims have been paid and actuarially determined reserves
have been set aside: Provided further, That if the cost of
administration of an insurance program exceeds the amount of
surplus earnings accumulated in that program, reimbursement
shall be made only to the extent of such surplus earnings:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall determine the cost
of administration for fiscal year 2002, which is properly
allocable to the provision of each insurance program and to
the provision of any total disability income insurance
included in such insurance program.
Sec. 108. (a)(1) Section 1729B of title 38, United States
Code, is repealed. Any balance as of the date of the
enactment of this Act in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Health Services Improvement Fund established under such
section shall be transferred to the Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Care Collections Fund established under
section 1729A of title 38, United States Code.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of
such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1729B.
(b) Section 1729A(b) of such title is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (9); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new
paragraphs:
``(7) Section 8165(a) of this title.
``(8) Section 113 of the Veterans Millennium Health Care
and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C. 8111
note).''.
(c)(1) Section 1722A(c) of such title is amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``under subsection
(a)'' and inserting ``under this section''; and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(2) Section 8165(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking
``Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Improvement
Fund established under section 1729B of this title'' and
inserting ``Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care
Collections Fund established under section 1729A of this
title''.
(3) Section 113(b) of the Veterans Millennium Health Care
and Benefits Act (Public Law 106-117; 38 U.S.C. 8111 note) is
amended by striking ``Department of Veterans Affairs Health
Services Improvement Fund established under section 1729B of
title 38, United States Code, as added by section 202'' and
inserting ``Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Care
Collections Fund established under section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code''.
Sec. 109. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Department of Veterans Affairs shall continue the Franchise
Fund pilot program authorized to be established by section
403 of Public Law 103-356 until October 1, 2002: Provided,
That the Franchise Fund, established by title I of Public Law
104-204 to finance the operations of the Franchise Fund pilot
program, shall continue until October 1, 2002.
Sec. 110. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease proceeds
to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by that account
during a prior fiscal year for providing enhanced-use lease
services, may be obligated during the fiscal year in which
the proceeds are received.
Sec. 111. Funds available in any Department of Veterans
Affairs appropriation for fiscal year 2002 or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management
and the Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint
Adjudication for all services provided at rates which will
recover actual costs but not exceed $28,555,000 for the
Office of Resolution Management and $2,383,000 for the Office
of Employment and Discrimination Complaint Adjudication:
Provided, That payments may be made in advance for services
to be furnished based on estimated costs: Provided further,
that amounts received shall be credited to ``General
operating expenses'' for use by the office that provided the
service.
Mr. FILNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill be considered as read through line 25 of page 20,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will look to the manager for that unanimous
consent request.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the ranking
member of the authorizing committee has risen to offer an amendment,
and we had had prior discussion, and I would suggest that remaining in
regular order, I believe it would be the gentleman's opportunity to
offer his amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I thought
that this would allow that to occur, and then all of the other ones at
the end of title I.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York make a unanimous
consent request to open up the bill through page 20, line 25?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, page
20 through line 25, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Evans
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an Amendment No. 11.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Evans:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. None of the funds provided by this Act may be
used for the purpose of implementing any administrative
proposal that would require military retirees to make an
``irrevocable choice'' for any specified period of time
between Department of Veterans Affairs or military health
care under the new TRICARE for Life plan authorized in the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public 106-398).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of this
amendment at this point in the reading?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I had
assumed that this was in title I, and there are about 6 or 7 amendments
remaining in
[[Page H4699]]
title I that I assume the unanimous consent allowed to occur. Did the
maker of the motion assume that?
The CHAIRMAN. Amendment 11 is drafted to the end of the bill.
Mr. FILNER. Okay. But other amendments to title I would be in order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman
offering his amendments at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. That is without prejudice to any other amendment in
title I.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the Department
of Veterans' Affairs from expending appropriated funds for the purpose
of implementing a proposal contained in President Bush's budget.
The budget proposal would require all military retirees, including
the one-quarter million veterans currently enrolled for care in the VA,
to choose between either the VA or the DOD as their exclusive health
care provider. This proposal has incurred the justifiable anger of our
military retirees, the military itself, and the veterans service
organizations. I believe that retirees have earned their right to
access health care benefits in both systems and should be given that
right and choice.
Mr. Chairman, while it is my understanding that the legislation will
be needed to enact my proposal, I wish to prohibit any efforts by the
Department of Veterans' Affairs to begin implementation of it. Congress
should have more time to fully assess the effects this legislation will
have and its impact on the lives of former servicemen and women.
Military retirees have devoted their lives to serving our country. We
will breach our commitment if we allow the VA and the Department of
Defense to simply implement their proposal that eliminates veterans'
choice of providers. The truth is that these two systems provide very
different packages of services and military retirees have earned the
right to both.
I hope every Member of Congress will agree that this proposal is
worthy of approval, and I urge its approval. I want to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and my chairman on the authorizing
committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for getting this
done. I appreciate it.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We have
no objection to the amendment. We support in theory what the
administration is trying to do. Both the VA and DOD cannot adequately
plan and budget for services when both of these departments do not know
the number of people they are serving. However, there are very few
details from either VA or DOD, nor have we heard explanations on the
effects or restrictions of the proposed policy. So until DOD and the VA
can present us with a complete, well-thought-out plan, I support the
amendment of the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and fully support it. I
just wanted to express that. I appreciate the gentleman's contribution
to veterans.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), my good friend and ranking member
on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to prohibit the use of funds in
fiscal year 2002, to implement the administration's proposal that
military retirees be required to make an irrevocable choice between
military or VA health care for a defined period of years.
While we certainly want to encourage more efficient use of scarce
Federal health resources, at this juncture, we simply do not have
enough information about the potential impact of that specific
proposal. I do not think either the VA or the Department of Defense is
really prepared to deal with the implications of requiring this choice,
and both health care systems are already experiencing considerable
strain serving their beneficiaries. We need to understand the
implications of this proposal much, much better.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I urge
my colleagues to adopt it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Evans amendment. Forcing military retirees to choose between VA or DOD
TRICARE is wrong.
Our country owes an enormous debt to the men and women who served in
the Armed Forces.
It is because of their vigilance and dedication that we can enjoy the
freedom that is cherished by every American.
In exchange for their service to our country, we promised them
medical care for life. Without this amendment we will be taking a step
backwards from this promise.
This issue is of the utmost importance to the military retirees in
Marin and Sonoma counties.
Our community is fortunate to have the leadership of colonel Jack
Potter, who works tirelessly to ensure that retired veterans have full
access to both VA and DOD's TRICARE health care services.
Mr. Chairman, military retirees have earned their right to
participate in both plans. If older retirees want to use tricare
services for routine care, they should not then be forced to give up
access to VA health care services.
The sixty-five thousand retired veterans in my district who are both
medicare-eligible and enrolled in the VA Health Care System should not
be the scapegoats for the Veterans' Administration's funding problems.
As colonel Potter points out, more than two-thirds of veterans who
are enrolled in the VA health care system have disabilities.
If they want TRICARE for routine care, but are denied access to the
VA's highly respected specialty care services, disabled veterans may
not be able to get comparable care through other military or private
health care systems.
Many will be referred back to the VA for this specialized care at
their own expense--that's an unacceptable financial burden to place on
these retirees.
Another important consideration for our older military retirees is
access to no-cost services, such as hearing aids. These services will
not be free under TRICARE.
As you can see Mr. Chairman, the plan proposed in the appropriations
bill will cost our veterans more money for fewer medical care options.
I ask my colleagues to support the Evans amendment and correct the
wrong that will be done to our deserving veterans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) to strike $200 million for the down payment
assistance initiative to mostly fund additional section 8 vouchers.
This amendment would move this bill in the wrong direction and should
be opposed, as it was. As a member of the Committee on Financial
Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and a former
home renovator, I have worked on these issues, and I believe this
legislation as drafted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh),
moves in the right direction.
First, this amendment cuts the President's new down-payment
assistance initiative for getting more first-time home buyers into
their own homes. I cannot understate the importance of this initiative.
So many Americans lack the opportunity to purchase a new home and spend
a large percentage of their income on monthly rent. That can be the
right choice for some, but most families greatly benefit from the
purchase of their own homes. A home helps them create wealth for their
families and, in the form of equity, also invests them in the
community. In short, we help the families rise on the economic ladder
and build stronger communities in the process. It is truly the American
dream to own one's own home, a dream we have to help make a reality for
families who currently lack that opportunity.
Second, this amendment designates funding for additional section 8
vouchers. This would be in addition to the 34,000 new vouchers this
bill already provides. What I find interesting about this amendment is
that the Democrat-controlled Senate provides half of that, 17,000 new
section 8 vouchers. Why? In
[[Page H4700]]
the report that accompanies the Senate bill, they stated, ``The
reduction from the administration's request reflects the concerns of
the committee that vouchers do not always provide the best
opportunities for low-income families to obtain affordable housing.''
Perhaps our esteemed colleagues in the Senate know about the problems
housing authorities have had in distributing section 8 vouchers.
In my home county of Westchester, New York, we have 13,207 people on
the section 8 waiting list, yet the county and communities are not able
to use all of their section 8 vouchers because of a combination of lack
of available housing units and the inability of section 8 vouchers to
cover the fair market rent for the area.
I cannot help but feel frustrated by this problem. Here we have a
program in place with extra vouchers to assist families; here we have a
very long list of families who have applied for this assistance, yet
they are unable to use them because they are priced out of the market.
Unfortunately, the solution to this problem is not to add more
vouchers. That solution will only come with more and new and affordable
housing coming on to the market.
In short, the legislation takes an important step in the right
direction addressing the current affordable housing crisis in our
Nation. Unfortunately, the Nadler amendment would have reversed these
positive initiatives to add funding to an area where it cannot be used.
I have urged my colleagues to join me in voting against the Nadler
amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of title I, add the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Medical Care.--In addition to amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department
of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there is hereby
appropriated $30,000,000 for ``Medical Care'' for health care
benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were excluded
from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made
available in this section is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I make this amendment which is embodied in
bipartisan legislation by a large group of Members of this body,
including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who wrote the
maiden legislation; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who
has been a strong supporter of this legislation; the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is with us today; and the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), who spoke earlier; and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi); the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald); the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr); and
others who have contributed to this legislation.
{time} 1930
Mr. Chairman, 55 years ago this Congress committed a terrible
injustice. After World War II, after the victory that occurred, of
course first in Europe and then in the Pacific, those who were drafted
into the U.S. Army from our Philippines protectorate were
unceremoniously deprived of the benefits that were promised and earned
as veterans of the United States. In 1946 the then Congress rescinded
all the benefits that had accrued to our Filipine allies.
There was no doubt of the contributions that the Filipinos made. Side
by side with Americans, they held onto the Philippines and held up the
Japanese advance for many, many, many months beyond what the Japanese
had expected, and thus allowed the United States, at a terrible time in
1941, to prepare for the war.
These Filipinos fought at Bataan, where their resistance took many,
many months. When they were finally captured, Americans and Filipinos
were led on the famous death march, where hundreds and hundreds died on
the march and later in the prison camps in which they were held.
They fought bravely at Corregidor, and again the Japanese were held
up much longer than they had expected before they conquered the
Philippines. Along with Americans who were in the Philippines, their
guerrilla forces harassed for many, many months until MacArthur was
able to return. When MacArthur returned and landed at Leyte and then
was able eventually, of course, to defeat the Japanese, he attributed a
good part of his victory to his Filipino allies.
President Roosevelt had drafted all the units of the Philippine Army,
all of the members of the Commonwealth Army, all of the so-called
scouts, the Old Scouts, New Scouts, all of the guerrilla units into the
American Armed Forces. The implication was that they would be treated
as American soldiers, and therefore, American veterans. But after the
war was over, the Philippines did achieve independence and this
Congress said, ``Thank you, but no thank you. Your new government can
take care of you, and everything we promised, we rescind.''
I thought that was a terrible injustice, Mr. Chairman. The injustice
burns very deeply into the remaining veterans who are alive, barely
75,000 from over a quarter of a million or 300,000 who had fought in
the war. They are in their seventies and eighties. What they want most
before they die is the dignity and honor that would come from being
American veterans.
This amendment I have before us is a step toward that where we
provide them a very modest sum of money, $30 million, to be eligible
for health care benefits, as any other U.S. veteran. I think this is
the least of what we can do for these allies who did so much for us in
World War II.
Mr. Chairman, because this has not been accepted earlier in
authorization, I designate this as an emergency because it is an
emergency. It is an emergency because our morality as a nation needs to
be corrected, but more important, these gentlemen are about to die. Let
us reward these folks finally with the honor and dignity that they
deserve as our allies in World War II.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to add $30
million in health care benefits to a group of veterans who are in
desperate need of our assistance.
Filipino veterans who fought by our side in World War II have never
received fair and adequate veteran benefits because of the
Congressional Rescission Act of 1946.
I have long been an advocate of assisting our Filipino veterans. For
the past several Congresses, along with the distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner), we have introduced legislation to amend
title 38 of the U.S. Code in order to provide that the persons
considered to be members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army veterans
and members of the Special Philippine Scouts, by reason of their
service with the Armed Forces during World War II, should be eligible
for full veterans' benefits.
Mr. Chairman, on July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued a military
order, pursuant to the Philippines Independence Act of 1934, calling
members in the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the
United States Armed Forces of the Far East under the command of
Lieutenant General Douglas MacArthur.
For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine
Commonwealth Army fought alongside the Allies to reclaim the Philippine
islands from Japan. Regrettably, in return, Congress enacted the
Rescission Act of 1946. That measure limited veterans' eligibility for
service-connected disabilities and death compensation, and also denied
the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor they deserved
for being recognized as veterans of the United States Armed Forces.
A second group of veterans, the Special Philippine Scouts, called New
Scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945
primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific, were similarly
excluded from benefits.
These members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Special
[[Page H4701]]
Philippine Scouts served just as courageously as their American
counterparts during the Pacific War in World War II. Their
contributions helped to disrupt the initial Japanese offensive
timetable in 1942 at a point when the Japanese were expanding their
aggression unchecked throughout the western Pacific.
This delay in the Japanese plans helped to buy valuable time for the
scattered Allied forces to regroup, to reorganize and prepare for
checking the Japanese advance in the battles of the Coral Sea and
Midway.
Many have forgotten how dark those days before that victory at Midway
really were. Their actions also earned the Philippine soldiers the
wrath of their Japanese captors. As a result, many of the Filipinos
joined their American counterparts in the Bataan Death March, suffering
inhumane treatment which redefined the limits of human depravity.
During the next 2 years, Philippine Scout units operating from
mobile, isolated bases in the rural interior of the Philippine Islands
conducted an ongoing campaign of guerilla warfare, tying down precious
Japanese resources and manpower.
In 1944, Philippine forces provided invaluable assistance in the
liberation of the Philippine Islands, which in turn became an important
base for taking the war to the Japanese homeland. Without the
assistance of these Philippine units and guerilla forces, the
liberation of the Philippine Islands would have taken much longer and
been far more costly in lives than it actually was.
In a letter to the Congress dated May 16, 1946, President Harry
Truman wrote, ``The Philippine Army veterans are nationals of the
United States and will continue in that status after July 4, 1946. They
fought under the American flag and under the direction of our military
leaders. They fought with gallantry and courage under the most
difficult conditions during the recent conflict. They were commissioned
by the United States. Their official organization, the Army of the
Philippine Commonwealth, was taken into the Armed Forces of the United
States on July 26, 1941. That order has never been revoked and amended.
I consider it a moral obligation of the United States to look after the
welfare of the Philippine veterans.''
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is time for us to correct this injustice
to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the
Special Philippine Scouts with the benefits of the services they
valiantly earned during their service in World War II.
These veterans are well into the twilight years of their lives. It is
long past time for our Nation to pay meaningful acknowledgment to their
valuable contribution to the cause of freedom and democracy in the
Second World War.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) to restore some measure of
health benefits to Filipino veterans who fought in World War II. This
amendment would simply provide $30 million in health care benefits
through the VA system for those veterans who honorably served our
country.
On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued a military order calling
members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into service. For nearly 4
years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth army
fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippine Islands from
Japan.
A second group, the Special Philippine Scouts, enlisted after October
6, 1945. Despite their valiant service, Congress enacted the 1946
Rescission Act to limit their veteran benefits.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be a small step towards ensuring
Filipino veterans receive benefits just like other veterans who served
in World War II. For fundamental fairness, I urge the adoption of the
amendment, and want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for their leadership.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would say, Mubulhi Ag Filipinos, and to Filipinos,
mama haline keta Hunggung Wacus.
To the Filipinos I say, I will love you until the end of Earth.
I was stationed in the Philippines for many years, and I lived and
almost died with them in Vietnam. I want to tell the Members, there is
no more loyal group to the United States than the Filipinos.
I have never met a Filipino that turned his or her back on the United
States or a friend, but I think this country has turned its back for
too long on those people that fought and died for Americans.
General MacArthur said, ``I shall return.'' The Filipinos never left.
They gave their todays for many, American lives. They fought and they
died.
Many have seen the old John Wayne movies. They say, ``It was just a
movie,'' but it depicted the lives and the sacrifices of Filipinos at
Corregidor, Manila, Bagio City. Places like that, and the Bataan Death
March, ring in our ears and our history, but yet, Filipinos lived and
died in those issues, in those battles.
I served with thousands of Filipinos in the Navy that served on Navy
ships. They served for 20 years just so that they could become American
citizens. We have turned our back on them for 60 years with their
sacrifices, what they have given to this country. They have never
forgotten.
I think the gentleman from New York said, how many are left today?
Not very many. Yet, we promised them as veterans, as freedom fighters,
veterans' benefits. They have been turned down.
So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), and people who support this issue.
Members will not see very many Filipinos on welfare. Instead, we will
see their children at our universities, because if we go into the
Filipino community we will see them honor God and country and hard
work, and the family values that all of us cherish. But they live it
every single day, not only as citizens here, but as citizens in the
Philippines, as well.
The Navy right now, as a matter of fact, is short sailors. During a
period of time, they were our most loyal sailors. I have a bill coming
forward that says we ought to reinstitute that program to have
Filipinos serve, so they could become American citizens, just like in
the past.
I want to tell the Members, in San Diego, the last American flag to
fly over the Philippine Islands before it fell, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) has it in his office. That flag, at great risk
to a Filipino, when the Japanese tore it down in Bagio City, he wrapped
it up in a piece of canvas and saved it for the end of the war, because
it was of value to freedom. We should value those same traditions.
Today the President of the United States recognized thousands of
Filipinos at the White House today for their 60 years of service as
veterans. If we recognize that value, if we take a look and have a
resolution to that from the President of the United States, from the
Department of Veterans Affairs, Secretary Principi, then it should be
recognized that they deserve the benefits due to veterans.
We are asking only for justice, what we say we all stand for in this
body.
{time} 1945
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full 5 minutes, but I did want to
rise to associate myself with the comments of our colleagues who have
spoken before on behalf of the Filner amendment to restore health care
benefits to Filipino war vets, and I thank my colleague for his
leadership in offering this amendment and his leadership over the years
on behalf of Filipino vets. He has done more than anyone, and any of us
who care about the Filipino vets and the commitment our country has
made to them are deeply in his debt.
As my colleagues have mentioned, for 4 years during World War II more
than 100,000 Filipinos fought alongside the Allied Forces to free the
Philippines from Japanese occupation. Drafted into the service in 1941
by order of President Roosevelt, these historic soldiers served under
the command of Lieutenant General Douglas
[[Page H4702]]
MacArthur, fighting valiantly to recapture the Philippines and playing
a key role in the allied victory in the Pacific.
Our Nation has not given these veterans the honor and respect they
deserve at the hands of our country. In 1946, Congress denied benefits
to these veterans and to another group of special Filipino Scouts who
enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945. Although these
brave soldiers, and many of their fellow soldiers, gave up their lives
for freedom, our country denied them the recognition and benefits
accorded to other servicemen and women in the Armed Forces. It took us
50 years to give the Filipino Scouts the promised citizenship.
Mr. Chairman, many of us in our communities and all of us in our
country are very blessed with a great Filipino-American community. In
spite of the fact that we have not honored our commitment to them, they
have blessed our country with their commitment to family values, with
their commitment to the work ethic, and with their very, very staunch
patriotism.
This amendment would make $30 million available to provide Filipino
veterans with the same health care benefits received by other World War
II vets. These World War II Philippine veterans are elderly now, their
numbers are dwindling. A number of them are suffering from health
problems. We are running out of time. It is time to right this wrong
and give the Filipino vets the recognition they deserve in their
twilight years.
I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment on health
benefits for Filipino vets. It is the least we can do, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I stand to first commend my friend and my fellow
Californian for his tenacious leadership in keeping this front and
center, this issue that is really an unfair issue, and that is giving
due diligence to the Filipino veterans who served admirably in World
War II.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise in strong support of the
Filner amendment to H.R. 2620, the VA-HUD appropriations bill. This
amendment would appropriate $30 million for medical care and general
health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans.
I have perhaps the largest concentration of Filipino citizens in my
district in the city of Carson, and I tell my colleagues that they are
constantly crying and pleading for fairness to be done and say this
amendment will begin to correct a wrong visited upon the Filipino
veterans who served alongside the U.S. forces during World War II.
Our agreement or even disagreement with the current policy and
economic pressures should never diminish our love and profound respect
for the men and women who chose duty over personal safety and went into
the battle-torn areas carrying our flag. We should have resources to
take care of those Filipino veterans who have sacrificed on behalf of
our Nation.
This amendment simply addresses the health care needs for a forgotten
group of veterans, namely the Filipino veterans. These loyal and
valiant men fought, suffered, and, in many instances, died in the same
manner and under the same commander as other members of the United
States Armed Forces during World War II. Their services to the Nation
parallels others whose efforts and service have not been recognized or
compensated.
We cannot forget the valiant and valuable services performed by the
Filipino veterans. The Filner amendment will appropriate $30 million
for the health care benefits for these veterans of World War II who
were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Act of 1946. As we
continue to address the needs of our Nation's veterans, we should heed
the word of President Lincoln who called on all Americans ``to care for
him who shall have borne the battle.''
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and adhere to
President Lincoln's call.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to
change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation
bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in
pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall
not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and as
such constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I do. I understand the Chairman's
reservation. He gives the impression that anything that constitutes
legislation or emergency is somehow beyond the rules of this House, and
yet in this bill there are dozens, I would think, maybe hundreds, I do
not know, nobody can tell me, of provisions that are not authorized in
legislation. In fact, we have a $1.3 billion emergency designation in
the bill.
So to make the point that this is legislation and it is emergency, we
all agree, but this has been done in this bill, in this Congress, many,
many, many, many times for billions and billions and billions of
dollars. I would just ask, on behalf of the 60,000 Filipino veterans
that are left alive, that the gentleman does not insist on the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes an emergency designation
under section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985. Based on similar rulings--for example, on June 19,
2000--the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kleczka
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kleczka:
At the end of title I, insert the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Authority of Department of Veterans Affairs
Pharmacies to Dispense Medications to Veterans on
Prescriptions Written by Private Practitioners.--Subsection
(d) of section 1712 of title 38, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(d) Subject to section 1722A of this title, the Secretary
shall furnish to a veteran such drugs and medicines as may be
ordered on prescription of a duly licensed physician in the
treatment of any illness or injury of the veteran.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended by striking the sixth through ninth words.
(2) The item relating to that section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of that title is
amended by striking the sixth through ninth words.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the committee
giving me time to explain the amendment, although I do recognize that a
point of order does lay against this proposal.
The amendment I offer to the bill would improve veterans' access to
prescription drugs by permitting the Veterans Administration to accept
the prescriptions written by a veteran's family doctor.
As my colleagues listen to this explanation, they might say, gosh,
this is common sense. Why is this not being changed today? Well, the
current law mandates that the veteran who is going to get a
prescription from the VA has to see his primary doctor. In its wisdom a
few years ago, Congress permitted nonservice connected disability
veterans access to medical care, specifically the drug benefit.
However, because of this law, veterans are having to wait 9 months to a
year before they can see a Veterans Administration doctor. And once
they wait that long, naturally, they have to still go to their local
pharmacy and pay the full price for their drugs. But once they finally
get through the waiting process, the doctor at the VA will examine the
veteran and, for the most part, come to
[[Page H4703]]
the same conclusion that the veteran's family physician came to, and
then they get whatever drug is being prescribed.
Well, not only are the veterans being inconvenienced by the long
wait, but also the examination by the veteran's physician costs money.
It is estimated that each visit to the primary VA doctor, which is
duplicative at best, costs about $254. In fact, many times the cost to
the veteran's hospital for the VA physician visit is more than the
drugs being given to the veteran.
The Inspector General testified before a Senate committee on July 24
of this year, and he indicated their recommendation was that this
process should be streamlined. They recommended that the VA seek a
statutory change authorizing the VA to fill prescriptions written by a
veteran's family doctor.
The thing that is very important to note is Members here, care, that
IG indicated this change would save some $1.3 billion. Now, that cost
savings can be plowed back into the veterans' health care and buy a lot
of health care and clearly a lot of pharmaceutical drugs for veterans.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the chairman of the subcommittee
would drop his request for the point of order. It clearly is
appropriate to the bill, especially in light of the fact that this
amendment would save the VA budget some $1.3 billion.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to
change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriation
bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 rule XXI. The rule states in
part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in
order if changing existing law.''
This amendment directly amends existing law, and I would ask for a
ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I do, and in closing and in response to
the point of order being raised by the gentleman from New York, I
cannot dispute that. In part there is legislating contained in this
amendment. But in large part, and I think the gentleman would agree, if
in fact the IG is even close to the mark, saving $1.3 billion in the
legislation that the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from
West Virginia took so much time to put together, and did such a great
job on, would come in handy for providing payment for these
prescription drugs that these veterans are getting.
But I think the gentleman is accurate in his assessment, and I ask
the Chair to rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Filner) may offer his remaining four amendments to
this title en bloc, may debate them for 16 minutes, equally divided,
and I retain rights to reserve points of order on this en bloc
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentleman from New York to give
the Chair a better explanation of the time division.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the idea is to provide each side with 8
minutes to discuss these four amendments en bloc. The gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner) and I have discussed this, and I believe he
finds it acceptable.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. There will be 16 minutes for the Filner amendments en
bloc, equally divided 8 minutes per side, and all amendments thereto.
Amendments No. 1, 2, 4, and 5 Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments No. 1, 2, 4, and 5.
{time} 2000
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments:
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments numbered 1, 2, 4 and 5 offered by Mr. Filner:
Amendment No. 1
At the end of title I, add the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Medical Care.--In addition to amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department
of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there is hereby
appropriated $1,700,000,000 for ``Medical Care''.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made
available in this section is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
____
Amendment No. 2
At the end of title I, add the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Compensation and Pensions.--In addition to
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the
Department of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there
is hereby appropriated $3,000,000 for ``Compensation and
Pensions'', to be available only to establish a presumption
of service-connection for the occurrence of Hepatitis C in
veterans who were exposed to Hepatitis C risk factors during
active military, naval, or air service.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made
available in this section is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
____
Amendment No. 4
At the end of title I, add the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Medical Research.--In addition to amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department
of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there is hereby
appropriated $24,000,000 for ``Medical Research''.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made
available in this section is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
____
Amendment No. 5
At the end of title I, add the following new section:
Sec. ____. (a) Readjustment Benefits.--In addition to
amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the
Department of Veterans Affairs elsewhere in this Act, there
is hereby appropriated $871,700,000 for ``Readjustment
Benefits''. The provisions of H.R. 320 of the 107th Congress,
as introduced, are hereby enacted into law, and the amount
provided by this section shall be available only for the
purpose of increases in benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill
program made by those provisions.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The entire amount made
available in this section is designated by the Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the en
bloc amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved against the en bloc
amendments.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 8
minutes.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments with regard to the
Veterans Administration budget.
The chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member know that all
of the Members of this body hold the view that their commitment to
veterans cannot be challenged, nor can the commitment of our chair and
ranking members of the authorizing committee.
Yet because of the budget situation we are in and notwithstanding
improvements to the veterans budget over the last couple of years, the
veterans budget is still grossly underfunded. As we like to say on the
Democratic side at the Veterans Committee, we do not have a surplus
unless we have paid our bills. We have not paid our bills to our
Nation's veterans. We have not kept our commitment. We have not honored
our contract.
My amendments try to put the money that would indicate our commitment
back into this budget. I have the money designated as an emergency
because, under the rules of House, otherwise I would have to take
offsets to those agencies within this particular bill. I do not want to
play off housing or environment or science against the needs of our
veterans.
I will state that there is an emergency out there, Mr. Chairman. We
have veterans who are waiting months and months and months, sometimes
[[Page H4704]]
years for the adjudication of their claims. We have veterans waiting 5,
6, 8 months to see a doctor. We have veterans with hepatitis C,
recently diagnosed, having emerged after 20 years, a fatal disease that
we do not have sufficient understanding of or resources to treat.
We are condemning our veterans to die. We have not figured out how to
provide long-range care. We have not done what we should have for the
homeless veterans, 500,000 of whom are on the street tonight. We do not
put sufficient money into medical research. Eleven or 12 years after
the Gulf War, we do not have any understanding of or treatment for
Persian Gulf War illness. Hundreds of thousands of veterans are
suffering from that.
Mr. Chairman, we have the resources in our society to say to those
who are under the GI bill for education, let us make that GI bill
really effective.
Mr. Principi, who is now the Veterans Administration Secretary, wrote
a report before he became Secretary when he was chairman of the so-
called Transition Commission; and he proposed that the Montgomery GI
bill for education fully fund education, tuition and fees at college,
plus books, plus expenses, plus a stipend of roughly $1,000 a month.
That would make that benefit real. That would give the veterans what
they earned, and that would be a great recruitment tool for our forces.
Yet, what do we do now? We give a $500 or $600 a month stipend. Most
veterans cannot use that because it is insufficient. So I am asking in
my amendments for what we just owe our veterans and what we have the
money for.
Our budget is based on the fact that we just passed the tax cut this
year of about $2 trillion over the next decade. That leaves us without
paying our debt to our veterans.
How do I know how much money is needed? The Chair of the committee is
often saying, no matter what money we give, everybody wants more. I
will tell my colleagues, all the veterans' service organizations of our
country got together and produced something called the independent
budget. It is a very analytical and professional job. It does not just
say, give me more money because I am a veteran. It says, put in this
much money to the veterans' benefit administration so we can reduce the
waiting times for adjudication to 30 days. It says, put in the amount
of money we need so we do not have to wait 6 months for doctors. It
says, put in the money for research so we can deal with Persian Gulf
War illness and we can deal with post-traumatic stress syndrome.
The veterans know what we need and we know we are not giving it to
them, Mr. Chairman. We had on the floor earlier statements from the
committee and from the authorizing committee that says we are doing
everything we can for our veterans. I would challenge those colleagues
to go with me to any town meeting anywhere in America and say to our
veterans, we are doing what we should be doing for you. They would not
be given a very good reception.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for an additional $1.7 billion for the health
care of our veterans. The billion dollars that the Chair refers to that
increased this year does not even keep up with inflation. We have got
to at least keep up with inflation and move forward on a whole variety
of efforts.
I have asked for money to make sure that veterans who are exposed to
hepatitis C, probably a fatal disease, get the treatment and care that
they need. I have asked that we fully fund the Montgomery GI bill at
the level that is asked for in legislation that the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans) has introduced. I ask for research money to make
sure that the VA, which has been in the forefront of research on a
whole variety of things, a national resource that has been kept us and
this Nation in the forefront of medical research.
We can keep those efforts in an excellent capacity. We can give the
veterans the benefits they deserve. As our veterans are older, long-
term care becomes more important. The aging of our population requires
more resources and a different kind of attention.
And whether we are talking about the Persian Gulf illnesses, PTSD,
Parkinson's disease, mental health illnesses, spinal cord injuries or
heart disease, these are areas where we can give our veterans the
treatment and care and attention they deserve.
So if we are to keep the promises that we made to our Nation's
veterans, we should provide a budget that will address these needs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, to
allow the designation of an emergency, to really show the veterans, the
country which has produced this incredible surplus, they gave us this
country and we owe it to them.
I know my colleague will ask for a point of order based on the fact
that these are emergency designations. Come on, let us treat our
veterans as real colleagues. Let us say it is an emergency. Let us give
them the attention they need.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's
amendment which would restore the purchasing power of the GI bill.
I was encouraged earlier this session by the House's passage of H.R.
1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, which
provided a modest and much needed increase to the GI bill's monthly
benefits.
At a time when drastic tax cuts have overshadowed our nation's
priorities, it was refreshing that the House took up legislation that
improved education benefits for service men and women.
Educational benefits are the military's best recruiting tool, and the
GI bill must be modernized to meet today's demands.
However, while this measure provides a stronger education package to
the men and women who choose to serve our country in uniform, I regret
that we could not have achieved more.
Ultimately, unfortunately, the cost of this legislation was
considered too prohibitive after the Administrations $1.35 billion tax
cut.
Tax cuts precluded Mr. Evans the ranking member, from offering his
amendment during subcommittee mark-up of H.R. 1291, which was abruptly
canceled.
H.R. 320, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act, which Mr. Evans
intended to offer as an amendment, would have significantly improved
educational benefits for veterans by covering the full cost of tuition,
fees, books and supplies as well as provide a subsistence allowance for
those who enlist or reenlist for four years.
Mr. Filner's amendment mirrors the objectives of H.R. 320 and would
give the Montgomery GI bill a much needed boost and move us closer to
offering a competitive education package for the men and women who
served our country with their military service.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York insist on his point of
order?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an
appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
This amendment includes an emergency designation under section 251 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and, as
such, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is
recognized.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the technical basis for the
point of order. I know the commitment that the Chair has for veterans,
and I ask the gentleman to see beyond the technicalities. The gentleman
knows his bill contains legislation that has not come before this
House. He knows his bill contains emergency funds.
Mr. Chairman, this is not asking for any radical kind of move for
this House. This is asking to make the commitment to our Nation's
veterans that we have in our budget, the ability to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment en bloc includes an emergency
designation under section 251(b)(2)(a) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 in each constituent part of the
amendment en bloc.
[[Page H4705]]
Based on a ruling of the Chair on June 19, 2000, on a similar
amendment, the amendment en bloc constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Public and Indian Housing
housing certificate fund
(including transfer and rescission of funds)
For activities and assistance to prevent the involuntary
displacement of low-income families, the elderly and the
disabled because of the loss of affordable housing stock,
expiration of subsidy contracts (other than contracts for
which amounts are provided under another heading in this Act)
or expiration of use restrictions, or other changes in
housing assistance arrangements, and for other purposes,
$16,334,242,000, of which $640,000,000 shall be from
unobligated balances from amounts recaptured from fiscal year
2000 and prior years pursuant to a reduction in the amounts
provided for Annual Contributions Contract Reserve Accounts,
and amounts that are recaptured in this account to remain
available until expended: Provided, That not later than
October 1, 2001, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall reduce from sixty days to thirty days the
amount of reserve funds made available to public housing
authorities: Provided further, That of the total amount
provided under this heading, $16,125,241,000, of which
$11,285,241,000 and the aforementioned recaptures shall be
available on October 1, 2001 and $4,200,000,000 shall be
available on October 1, 2002, shall be for assistance under
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (``the
Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 1437): Provided further, That the
foregoing amounts shall be for use in connection with
expiring or terminating section 8 subsidy contracts, for
amendments to section 8 subsidy contracts, for enhanced
vouchers (including amendments and renewals) under any
provision of law authorizing such assistance under section
8(t) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 1437f(t)), contract
administrators, and contracts entered into pursuant to
section 441 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act:
Provided further, That amounts available under the first
proviso under this heading shall be available for section 8
rental assistance under the Act: (1) for the relocation and
replacement of housing units that are demolished or disposed
of pursuant to the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134; Stat. 1321-
269); (2) for the conversion of section 23 projects to
assistance under section 8; (3) for funds to carry out the
family unification program; (4) for the relocation of
witnesses in connection with efforts to combat crime in
public and assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law
enforcement or prosecution agency; (5) for tenant protection
assistance, including replacement and relocation assistance;
and (6) for the 1-year renewal of section 8 contracts for
units in a project that is subject to an approved plan of
action under the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation
Act of 1987 or the Low-Income Housing Preservation and
Resident Homeownership Act of 1990: Provided further, That of
the total amount provided under this heading, no less than
$11,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund
for the development and maintenance of information technology
systems: Provided further, That of the total amount provided
under this heading, up to $197,246,000 shall be made
available for incremental vouchers under section 8 of the
Act, of which $157,334,000 shall be made available on a fair
share basis to those public housing agencies that have a 97
percent occupancy rate; and of which $39,912,000 shall be
made available to nonelderly disabled families affected by
the designation of a public housing development under section
7 of the Act, the establishment of preferences in accordance
with section 651 of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13611), or the restriction of occupancy to
elderly families in accordance with section 658 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 13618), and to the extent the Secretary determines
that such amount is not needed to fund applications for such
affected families, to other nonelderly disabled families:
Provided further, That up to $195,600,730 from amounts
available under this heading may be made available for
administrative fees and other expenses to cover the cost of
administering rental assistance programs under section 8 of
the Act: Provided further, That the fee otherwise authorized
under section 8(q) of such Act shall be determined in
accordance with section 8(q), as in effect immediately before
the enactment of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility
Act of 1998: Provided further, That $886,000,000 is rescinded
from unobligated balances remaining from funds appropriated
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development under this
heading or the heading ``Annual contributions for assisted
housing'' or any other heading for fiscal year 2001 and prior
years: Provided further, That any such balances governed by
reallocation provisions under the statute authorizing the
program for which the funds were originally appropriated
shall not be available for this rescission: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall have until September 30, 2002, to
meet the rescission in the proviso preceding the immediately
preceding proviso: Provided further, That any obligated
balances of contract authority that have been terminated
shall be canceled.
public housing capital fund
(including transfer of funds)
For the Public Housing Capital Fund Program to carry out
capital and management activities for public housing
agencies, as authorized under section 9 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437g),
$2,555,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided, That, hereafter, notwithstanding any other
provision of law or any failure of the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development to issue regulations to carry out
section 9(j) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437g(j)), such section is deemed to have taken effect
on October 1, 1998, and, except as otherwise provided in this
heading, shall apply to all assistance made available under
this same heading on or after such date: Provided further,
That of the total amount provided under this heading, in
addition to amounts otherwise allocated under this heading,
$262,000,000 shall be allocated for such capital and
management activities only among public housing agencies that
have obligated all assistance for the agency for fiscal years
1998 and 1999 made available under this same heading in
accordance with the requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 9(j) of such Act (except that the provisions of
section 9(j)(4) shall not apply to such amounts): Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or
regulation, the Secretary may not delegate to any Department
official other than the Deputy Secretary any authority under
paragraph (2) of such section 9(j) regarding the extension of
the time periods under such section for obligation of amounts
made available for fiscal year 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, or
2002: Provided further, That notwithstanding the first
proviso and paragraphs (3) and (5)(B) of such section 9(j),
if at any time before the effectiveness of final regulations
issued by the Secretary under section 6(j) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(j)) providing for
assessment of public housing agencies and designation of
high-performing agencies, any amounts made available under
the public housing Capital Fund for fiscal year 1999, 2000,
2001, or 2002 remain unobligated in violation of paragraph
(1) of such section 9(j) or unexpended in violation of
paragraph (5)(A) of such section 9(j), the Secretary shall
immediately recapture any such amounts and reallocate such
amounts among public housing agencies that, at the time of
such reallocation, are not in violation of any requirement
under paragraph (1) or (5)(A) of such section: Provided
further, That for purposes of this heading, the term
``obligate'' means, with respect to amounts, that the amounts
are subject to a binding agreement that will result in
outlays immediately or in the future: Provided further, That
of the total amount provided under this heading, up to
$51,000,000 shall be for carrying out activities under
section 9(h) of such Act, of which up to $10,000,000 shall be
for the provision of remediation services to public housing
agencies identified as ``troubled'' under the Section 8
Management Assessment Program: Provided further, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, up to $500,000
shall be for lease adjustments to section 23 projects, and no
less than $43,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working
Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of
information technology systems: Provided further, That no
funds may be used under this heading for the purposes
specified in section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of
1937, as amended: Provided further, That of the total amount
provided under this heading, up to $75,000,000 shall be
available for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
to make grants to public housing agencies for emergency
capital needs resulting from emergencies and natural
disasters in fiscal year 2002.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian
Housing--public housing capital fund'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$100,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Public and Indian
Housing--revitalization of severely distressed public housing
(hope vi)'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the concentration of poverty,
any way one looks at it, simply stated is not productive. It is
inhumane, unethical. It is not diverse and does not work.
According to the 1999 census data, 32.3 million people in the United
States live in poverty. That gives us a poverty rate of 11.8 percent.
The National Coalition reports as many as 3 million people are homeless
during the course of a year. Of this number, 80,000 of them are in the
City of Chicago. The concept of mixing income in neighborhoods offers
the best practice of hope for low-income individuals.
[[Page H4706]]
Chicago, one of the most poverty-stricken cities in the Nation, has a
tremendous need to uplift the quality of life for its residents.
Currently, in Chicago the Robert Taylor and Rockwell Gardens
developments, two of the most well-known public housing developments in
the country, are in separate need of Hope VI funding which will allow
integration and economic prosperity.
I stand today, Mr. Chairman, to beg, to implore, to appeal to the
entire 107th Congress, and to argue to increase the funding for this
program by $100 million. Hope VI provides disadvantaged families and
communities across the country with opportunities for revitalization
and new chances, chances for advancement.
All of us would probably agree, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to tear
down the high-rise public housing developments, the high-rises, as we
know them, the concentrations of poverty. These families need hope and
an adequate chance. It is time to fight inner city crime, teen
pregnancy, high unemployment, which are all concentrated in the urban
ghettos that exist in this Nation centered around high-rise public
housing developments.
{time} 2015
To improve the quality of life for these families, it is necessary to
improve the quality of public housing. We can do that by providing the
necessary support services, the programs, that encourage residents to
go to school, find employment, develop careers, and realize a better
quality of life. All of this is found in HOPE VI.
By 1999, HOPE VI had provided benefits to 7,840 current resident
families, including 4,076 families relocated to section 8 in new units,
5,668 new families in revitalized development, 1,969 families leaving
TANF, and a 98 percent increase of youth participation in self-
sufficiency programs. HOPE VI had achieved leveraged ratios of 31 cents
for every dollar in 1993 and increased this ratio to $2.07 by 1999.
HOPE VI revitalization has reduced the average density of on-site
development from 23 to 11 and the average percentage of very low income
families from 92 to 35 percent. The ultimate outcome of these
developments has improved the quality of life for residents of HOPE VI
developments and better integration into the overall community.
The city of Chicago has a bold new transformation plan for public
housing, and, that is to replace the high-rises with mixed-income
housing where individuals can interact with different-type persons
across the board. But that transformation plan is contingent upon being
able to receive assistance from HOPE VI. Unless there is adequate
funding for HOPE VI, then we run the risk of going to the well and
there being no water, of going to the trough and there being no
substance.
And so I would urge, Mr. Chairman, that we support this amendment and
continue to give hope to the millions of people who need hope and can
receive it through the HOPE VI program.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $100 million from the Public
Housing Capital Fund in order to increase the HOPE VI program. As has
been discussed today, we have already reduced the capital program for
public housing. So I do not think it is a good idea to go any further.
The bill provides for $573 million in the HOPE VI program which is at
the same level as last year. As the gentleman knows, the bill already
includes a reduction below last year for capital fund based on the
unspent fund problem. There are approximately $7 billion in unspent
funds in the capital fund. There has been a lot of discussion and
opposition to cutting it further or even cutting it that much. However,
we do maintain funding for those public housing authorities which are
actually spending their funds.
The gentleman's amendment would cut $100 million of the $262 million
we have targeted to those high-performing public housing authorities in
order to provide a 17 percent increase in HOPE VI. While I appreciate
his support for HOPE VI, I must point out that, like the Public Housing
Capital Fund, HOPE VI is another account where there are significant
amounts of unspent funds. In fact, there are over $3 billion in unspent
HOPE VI funds. So while I share the gentleman's support for the
program, I cannot support cutting the capital fund further in order to
provide a 17 percent increase in the HOPE VI program and, therefore, I
urge the rejection of the amendment.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if someone is doing an illustrated dictionary and needs
perhaps a metaphorical or a dictionary of figures of speech and wants
to illustrate the phrase ``robbing Peter to pay Paul,'' that is the
dilemma we are in now.
I know the gentleman from Illinois who cares deeply about lower
income people is as unhappy as many of us on this side in particular
are at this kind of choice. I admire his commitment to the HOPE VI
program which has been a very important one, because HOPE VI has been
extremely useful in my district. My dilemma is that we also have a
problem with public housing capital funds. And so, Mr. Chairman,
Members who are undecided as to how to vote on this will get no
guidance from me. They seem on the whole to do without that in general,
so that is okay. But this is important because it underlines the
tragedy that this bill represents. It quite literally sets the poor
against the poor, lower income working people against lower income
working people, public housing against subsidized housing for the
elderly, anticrime/drug efforts in public housing against efforts to
rehabilitate that housing.
This indicates how terribly inadequate this bill is. The gentleman
from New York said no matter how much money there was, people would say
it was inadequate. I have to tell him he is wrong, and I hope he will
test us someday. Come in here with a bill that does not cut virtually
every program in real terms.
Let us talk about the public housing situation. The public housing
operating budget is cut in real terms. We are told it gets an increase,
but out of that increase they are supposed to pay the higher utility
bills. By the way, the Secretary of HUD when he testified before our
committee and was asked what the budget assumed, the operating budget
for public housing regarding fuel bills, he told us he did not endorse
this. He, as a good soldier, told us that the Energy Department had
instructed him to say that the expectation is that fuel bills next year
will be lower for the housing authorities and, therefore, they were to
get less money for that. They are to get some additional money and out
of that pay for the public housing drug elimination program. On the
capital funds, it has already been reduced some. We are told, well, it
is reduced because they have not spent it all. They have not spent it
all in part because you do not spend responsibly right away, you have
to do capital planning, and they are doing this.
This bill underfunds virtually every category where we are dealing
with housing. Public housing in particular deserves our attention. I
quoted before the President's laudable sentiment that he would not
leave any child behind. More poor children live in public housing than
in any other segment obviously of our society.
And we are talking about this terrible choice. The gentleman from
Illinois is not attacking public housing. The HOPE VI program helps
public housing. What we are talking about here, as he correctly brings
to us with this amendment, is this terrible choice about public
housing. Which aspect of it will we underfund the worst? Will we let
the projects deteriorate in general with inadequate capital funding?
Will we allow, under HOPE VI, some concentration to improve them?
There are other areas of problems. I will be getting later to the
question of the Federal Housing Administration. I want to stress again,
it is not simply the poor and lower income working people who are being
hurt by this Congress' failure and this administration's refusal
adequately to fund things, the FHA program that builds multiple family
housing for middle-income people has been shut down for months for want
of $40 million; and it will turn out later that they are, in fact,
overcharging in other FHA programs, we are told by more than $50
million.
So this amendment is to me a terrible dilemma. We have two very
valuable programs that serve the poorest people in this society, and we
have to
[[Page H4707]]
choose between them. The President said we need to do a tax cut of that
magnitude because it is not the government's money, it is the people's
money. People live in public housing. The government does not live in
public housing. The residents of public housing are people who are in
need. This dilemma is brought upon us by that irresponsible tax cut.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis)
will be postponed.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer an amendment regarding the
National Science Foundation, an amendment that would help assure some
much-needed expertise in scientific project management for the National
Science Foundation. Rather than offer an amendment that might not have
an appropriate dollar amount, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished gentleman from New York concerning the construction
of scientific facilities and instruments provided in the National
Science Foundation appropriation.
First let me congratulate the gentleman from New York and the
Committee on Appropriations as well as his staff for the well-thought-
out NSF appropriation. As he knows, NSF's primary mission includes
funding peer-reviewed, investigator-initiated research by individuals
or small groups. This is an operation that the NSF has managed well.
However, NSF has seen its role in funding larger projects such as the
construction of radio and optical telescopes expand significantly in
recent years. Problems encountered in the management of some of these
projects and concerns raised by the NSF inspector general suggest that
the NSF may not have an adequate plan, adequate experience or adequate
resources with which to effectively oversee these large-ticket
projects. Indeed, language in the President's budget blueprint directs
NSF to develop a plan ``to enhance its capability to estimate costs and
provide oversight of project development and construction.''
Does the Committee on Appropriations share these concerns?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. We do. The Committee on Appropriations shares the
gentleman's concern concerning the current lack of oversight for
project management within the National Science Foundation. In its March
2000 report to Congress, the Inspector General of the National Science
Foundation reported that ``NSF does not have adequate policies and
procedures in place to address the complex problems involved in
overseeing and administering large infrastructure awards.'' This is why
the committee report included language directing NSF to establish
project management procedures and accounting systems.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, I think that is excellent.
The National Science Foundation is currently drafting a facilities
management and oversight plan and is expected to present a final draft
to the National Science Board at their August meeting. As chairman of
the Subcommittee on Research, I will be holding a hearing early in
September to review this policy and try to ensure that it will
adequately address concerns with regard to accounting, appropriate
management, and construction oversight of NSF projects.
Scientific experiments are, by their nature, high-risk ventures that
challenge the state of the art, if you will, in a number of
technologies. As a result, these projects require rigorous cost and
schedule control systems so that management can identify problems early
and minimize the impact on the total project cost and success. Just as
importantly, these projects require a management team that is extremely
knowledgeable about the underlying science and has extensive experience
in the management of large-scale, complex scientific projects.
I hope that our two committees can continue to work together to
ensure that NSF has the resources and personnel it needs to manage
these large, taxpayer-supported projects.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the committee shares the gentleman's goal of
providing NSF with sufficient resources to adequately manage and
safeguard the taxpayer's investment. As he noted, NSF is increasingly
involved in the construction of these large complex scientific
experiments and facilities. It is also increasingly reliant on
detailees and other temporary employees to supplement their Federal
workforce. A cadre of experienced Federal project management
professionals would certainly improve the institutional memory and
accountability within NSF.
{time} 2030
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continue
working with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh), and
certainly the ranking member, to assure that we maintain the high
standards for quality in research equipment and construction projects
as has been very evident in the excellent past work of NSF in research.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
issue before us. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the
future.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
public housing operating fund
(including transfer of funds)
For payments to public housing agencies for the operation
and management of public housing, as authorized by section
9(e) of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42
U.S.C. 1437g(e)), $3,494,868,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the total amount
provided under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be provided to
the Office of Inspector General for Operation Safe Home:
Provided further, That of the total amount provided under
this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for programs, as
determined appropriate by the Attorney General, which assist
in the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of violent
crimes and drug offenses in public and federally-assisted
low-income housing: Provided further, That funds made
available in the previous proviso shall be administered by
the Department of Justice through a reimbursable agreement
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development:
Provided further, That no funds may be used under this
heading for the purposes specified in section 9(k) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended.
revitalization of severely distressed public housing (hope vi)
For grants to public housing agencies for demolition, site
revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based
assistance grants to projects as authorized by section 24 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended,
$573,735,000 to remain available until September 30, 2003, of
which the Secretary may use up to $5,000,000 for technical
assistance and contract expertise, to be provided directly or
indirectly by grants, contracts or cooperative agreements,
including training and cost of necessary travel for
participants in such training, by or to officials and
employees of the department and of public housing agencies
and to residents: Provided, That none of such funds shall be
used directly or indirectly by granting competitive advantage
in awards to settle litigation or pay judgments, unless
expressly permitted herein.
native american housing block grants
(including transfers of funds)
For the Native American Housing Block Grants program, as
authorized under title I of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) (25
U.S.C. 411 et seq.), $648,570,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $2,200,000 shall be contracted through the
Secretary as technical assistance and capacity building to be
used by the National American Indian Housing Council in
support of the implementation of NAHASDA; of which $5,000,000
shall be to support the inspection of Indian housing units,
contract expertise, and technical assistance in the training,
oversight, and management of Indian housing and tenant-based
assistance, including up to $300,000 for related travel; and
of which no less than $2,000,000 shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of
information technology systems: Provided, That of the amount
provided under this heading, $5,987,000 shall be made
available for the cost of guaranteed notes and other
obligations, as authorized by title VI of NAHASDA: Provided
further, That such costs, including the costs of modifying
such notes and other obligations, shall be as defined in
section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That these funds are available to
subsidize the total principal amount of any notes and other
obligations, any part of
[[Page H4708]]
which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed $52,726,000:
Provided further, That for administrative expenses to carry
out the guaranteed loan program, up to $150,000 from amounts
in the first proviso, which shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'',
to be used only for the administrative costs of these
guarantees.
indian housing loan guarantee fund program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by section
184 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 1715z-13a), $5,987,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such costs, including the costs of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $234,283,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
guaranteed loan program, up to $200,000 from amounts in the
first paragraph, which shall be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses'', to be
used only for the administrative costs of these guarantees.
Community Planning and Development
housing opportunities for persons with aids
For carrying out the Housing Opportunities for Persons with
AIDS program, as authorized by the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 12901), $277,432,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2003: Provided, That the Secretary may
use up to $2,000,000 of the funds under this heading for
training, oversight, and technical assistance activities.
community development fund
(including transfers of funds)
For assistance to units of State and local government, and
to other entities, for economic and community development
activities, and for other purposes, $4,801,993,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the
amount provided, $4,399,300,000 is for carrying out the
community development block grant program under title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended
(the ``Act'' herein) (42 U.S.C. 5301): Provided further, That
$69,000,000 shall be for grants to Indian tribes
notwithstanding section 106(a)(1) of such Act; $3,300,000
shall be available as a grant to the Housing Assistance
Council; $2,794,000 shall be available as a grant to the
National American Indian Housing Council; $5,000,000 shall be
available as a grant to the National Housing Development
Corporation, for operating expenses not to exceed $2,000,000
and for a program of affordable housing acquisition and
rehabilitation; $5,000,000 shall be available as a grant to
the National Council of La Raza for the HOPE Fund, of which
$500,000 is for technical assistance and fund management, and
$4,500,000 is for investments in the HOPE Fund and financing
to affiliated organizations; and $34,424,000 shall be for
grants pursuant to section 107 of the Act: Provided further,
That no less than $15,000,000 shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund for the development and maintenance of
information technology systems: Provided further, That
$21,956,000 shall be for grants pursuant to the Self Help
Housing Opportunity Program: Provided further, That not to
exceed 20 percent of any grant made with funds appropriated
under this heading (other than a grant made available in this
paragraph to the Housing Assistance Council or the National
American Indian Housing Council, or a grant using funds under
section 107(b)(3) of the Act) shall be expended for
``Planning and Management Development'' and
``Administration'' as defined in regulations promulgated by
the Department.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--community development fund'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased
by $10,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--community development fund'', after the
dollar amount specified for Youthbuild program activities,
insert the following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Management and
Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$10,000,000)''.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will increase funding for
the YouthBuild program by $10 million. We are in the midst of an
affordable housing crisis in this country. One of our most basic needs
is to increase access to safe, affordable housing. That is why I am so
concerned about the significant underfunding of so many of our most
vital housing programs. Not only do many of our communities face a
shortage of housing stock, but much of what is currently available is
in disrepair and cannot be lived in.
That is where YouthBuild comes in. This program involves young people
in meaningful work in their communities, constructing or rehabilitating
much-needed homes for homeless and low-income people. Projects range
from rehabilitating 10-unit buildings to constructing new single-family
homes.
Finished buildings are rented as affordable housing. Sometimes they
represent opportunities for low-income community residents to buy their
first homes. As a result, housing that is substandard is transformed
into attractive homes in communities where there is a critical need for
housing.
As my colleagues are aware, the YouthBuild program provides grants on
a competitive basis to nonprofit organizations to assist high-risk
youth between the ages of 16 to 24 to learn housing construction job
skills and to complete their high school education. What is more,
program participants enhance their skills as they construct or
rehabilitate affordable housing for low- and moderate-income persons.
In fact, to date, more than 7,000 units of housing have been produced
by YouthBuild participants.
As they develop these marketable skills which will allow them to
secure future employment, they are contributing to the revitalization
of their community, and they are doing it in conjunction with the many
community-based organizations, local small businesses and international
corporations who have provided matching funds for these programs.
YouthBuild is currently training 6,500 people at 145 sites in 43
States. While this is certainly commendable, we could and should be
reaching so many more people and places. In fiscal year 2000, HUD
received 273 YouthBuild applications but could only fund 78 of them.
And while we should be increasing funding for this important program to
allow every applicant to receive funding, it is instead funded well
below the need.
What do we say to an 18-year-old kid who wants to get into the
construction trade but cannot get training? ``I am sorry, the funding
is not there. You will have to find another way.''
Although YouthBuild deserves a significant increase, given the
current budget restraints, I am merely asking that this vital program
receive an additional $10 million in fiscal year 2002. With this
increase, we will provide aid to over 100 communities nationwide.
My amendment offsets this increase by taking an equivalent amount
from HUD's Salaries and Expenses account, which receives a $25 million
increase. It stands to reason that if we can afford the money to
implement a program that requires our neediest citizens to work for
free, then we should provide the funding necessary to give these people
access to job training.
This is an amendment that everyone can support. If one supports
promoting self-sufficiency and community involvement for at-risk youth,
one should support the YouthBuild program. If one agrees that we are in
a housing crisis and affordable housing that these programs produce
will be valuable to our communities, one should vote for this
amendment.
I hope that Members will support this amendment and work with me to
begin a dialogue on the productive, successful means of promoting self-
sufficiency.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Velazquez amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose my good friend and colleague
from New York who does such a great job for our State, but its
difficulty is that the cut that has been proposed in the HUD Salaries
and Expenses account would force HUD to either cut over 100 staff
members in order to provide the 17 percent increase in YouthBuild, or
find some other accommodation, which I think would dramatically affect
HUD's ability to operate and administer its programs.
Last year, the YouthBuild program received a 17 percent increase in
the fiscal year 2001 bill, and that increase was maintained in 2002.
[[Page H4709]]
This is obviously a very difficult choice, but I would ask Members to
stay with the subcommittee bill; and, therefore, I would oppose the
amendment, which would provide another significant increase to a
program that was increased dramatically last year at the expense of
HUD's staff.
Therefore, I urge rejection of the amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Sonoma County People for Economic Opportunity in
Santa Rosa, California, my district, operates a successful YouthBuild
program, one that could actually be set up as a model across this
Nation.
I am absolutely pleased and proud to stand in strong support of this
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) to
increase funding for YouthBuild. In fact, if I had my way, we would set
a path in this Nation so that every single year we would increase the
YouthBuild program by at least 17 percent.
While building and remodeling homes for low-income families,
YouthBuild-Santa Rosa participants literally rebuild their own lives.
YouthBuild participants, who are unemployed young people between the
ages of 16 and 24, learn construction skills that start them down a
career path to a lifetime of well-paid jobs, jobs they can actually
afford to raise a family on.
If a participant does not have a high school diploma, it is possible,
encouraged and mandated that they complete their education, with strong
support from mentors, tutors and learning labs.
YouthBuild programs help young people to develop personal and family
living skills as they develop their life goals and their life plans. We
know they do a good job, because 85 percent of the participants who
completed their YouthBuild program went on to either attend college or
to take good jobs. With the tools and skills they learn at YouthBuild,
young people take control over their future. They do not become a
burden to their communities. They do become contributors to their
communities and to our country.
YouthBuild programs are great investments. I urge my colleagues to
support the Velazquez amendment; and I urge that we increase the
funding for YouthBuild, not just this year but every year in the
future.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, everybody says that they want to do things
for young people. They recognize they are a special problem. But when
you have a perfect program like YouthBuild, we have a great deal of
difficulty getting it continued and expanded.
YouthBuild is the perfect program in terms of maximum participation
and use of resources by the people who are being helped and minimum
bureaucracy, minimum overhead. I have a YouthBuild program in my
district, and it functions in the poorest community in my district, in
one of the poorest communities in the United States.
Brownsville is a community that has many indices that run parallel in
a negative way. No matter how you look at it, the number of young
people who are in juvenile delinquency programs, the number of AIDS
cases, the low level of education, the low reading levels, that
community has every strike against it, and young people have a rough
time.
But the YouthBuild program has a director who came aboard several
years ago and said, ``If you want to be in this program, no alcohol, no
drugs. You have got to be here on time, and you have got to be here
frequently. One or two absences, and you are out.'' Yet the program has
a long waiting list.
Young people see the program as having a concrete and immediate
consequence. They see themselves being able to get a job. They also are
required to get a high school diploma at the same time.
You have some other features in this program which run parallel to
some of the kinds of things that are being talked about at great length
nowadays, the faith-based initiatives.
The program that runs in my community would not be there if it was
not for the Episcopal Diocese working in cooperation with the
community. A large investment was made by the Episcopal Diocese. They
have helped to keep the program going and develop it, and now the
program has been able to get funding from other sources.
YouthBuild on a national level has been able now to attract funding
from foundations and from private industry. It is the model of a kind
of partnership program that we should all be striving for.
But let us not let the willingness of the private sector to invest or
the willingness of foundations to invest be a cop-out for the Federal
Government. Why should we bow out of a program that costs very small
amounts of money, and I think we are talking about a $10 million
increase here? Every year we have asked for very small increases, and
the money is definitely directed into the activities and the programs
which help the young people.
It has a double impact, of course: the training for the young people,
and then they actually do renovation and reconstruction of housing that
poor people are able to go into.
So I would like to have us send a message out there, that we are no
longer going to continue the present trend of backing away from the
sponsorship of meaningful youth programs. In the Department of Labor,
we have moved away from the Summer Youth Employment Program. Programs
for young people have been relegated to the States to continue. The
Summer Youth Employment Program, which was so vital, some States are
doing a good job, some are not. But we backed away from that vital
program. In general, the funding for youth programs has gone down in
the Department of Labor, job training programs of the type offered by
YouthBuild.
At the same time that we are backing away from job training programs,
the programs that are meaningful in terms of providing occupational
development for young people, shortages of all kinds keep developing.
We are being told now that school construction in New York City is
costing too much because they have a shortage of skilled craftsmen.
{time} 2045
We do not have enough carpenters; we do not have enough sheet metal
people in the construction industry. We are having a problem of being
overpriced because of the great pressure where the demand is greater
than the supply in terms of skilled personnel.
Some years ago, we backed away from vocational education in New York
City and the Federal Government. And we also ratcheted up the effort to
provide vocational education to a new category we call technical
education, and we got so technical until it got away from the education
of youngsters who could go into some trades that pay very well and that
are in demand. Youth Build brings us back to the reality that there are
large numbers of young people who will not stay in school they will not
go to college, but they are serious and they will respond to an effort
where they see a concrete benefit at the end. Youth Build offers a
concrete benefit at the end. They have a job doing something in the
neighborhood, doing something that not only pays well to begin with,
but it promises to pay more and more, and they are encouraged to go
into the apprenticeship programs of the various trades.
So for $10 million we get $1 billion worth of response in terms of
helping young people. I urge a yes vote for this important amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will not take the 5 minutes. I just wonder how many of my
colleagues, particularly the chairman and others on the other side of
the aisle, who would restrict this program have visited one. I visited
them twice in my district, and it is an inspiration to see young people
who have dropped out, who are at risk, whose lives could end up being a
total mess, back in school and learning construction skills and
building housing for low-income families.
Now, what could be a more efficient and more productive use of
Federal dollars for housing? We are taking at-risk kids, diverting them
from problems, giving them education, teaching them construction skills
and building housing for low-income people. This
[[Page H4710]]
program could use a 50 percent or a 100 percent increase every year and
put tens of thousands of kids back on the right track.
I urge my colleagues to support this very modest amendment to
increase this program.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the
requisite number of words.
I thank the gentlewoman from New York for offering this amendment.
I strongly support her efforts to increase the appropriation for
YouthBuild by $10 million. The current level of $60 million in the bill
flat funds this laudable program--a program that helps at-risk youth
learn valuable skills enabling them to gain employment and ultimately
break the cycle of poverty. This $10 million increase will make a
significant difference.
YouthBuild students work across the country, including in my city and
state. In New York City, the unemployment rate is above the national
average, and a significant number of these unemployed New Yorkers are
young people. Programs like YouthBuild can have a positive impact on
our nation's young adults.
The program offers job training, education, counseling, and
leadership opportunities to unemployed and out-of-school young adults,
ages 16-24, through the construction and rehabilitation of affordable
housing in their own communities. Many graduates go on to construction-
related jobs or college.
YouthBuild works in conjunction with Community Based Organizations,
local small businesses, and international corporations who provide
matching funds for these programs.
This is a great initiative we all can support. Not only does
YouthBuild help individual young people, but their work benefits many
low-income families in our neighborhoods.
I support the Valazquez amendment.
I urge my colleagues to invest in our young people!
Vote in favor of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the pending amendment?
Hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Of the amount made available under this heading,
$29,387,000 shall be made available for capacity building, of
which $24,945,000 shall be made available for ``Capacity
Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing''
for LISC and the Enterprise Foundation for activities as
authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993
(42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in effect immediately before June
12, 1997, with not less than $4,989,000 of the funding to be
used in rural areas, including tribal areas, and of which
$4,442,000 shall be for capacity building activities
administered by Habitat for Humanity International.
Of the amount made available under this heading, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may use up to
$54,879,000 for supportive services for public housing
residents, as authorized by section 34 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937, as amended, and for residents of housing
assisted under the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) and for grants for
service coordinators and congregate services for the elderly
and disabled residents of public and assisted housing and
housing assisted under NAHASDA.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
$25,000,000 shall be available for neighborhood initiatives
that are utilized to improve the conditions of distressed and
blighted areas and neighborhoods, to stimulate investment,
economic diversification, and community revitalization in
areas with population outmigration or a stagnating or
declining economic base, or to determine whether housing
benefits can be integrated more effectively with welfare
reform initiatives: Provided, that any unobligated balances
of amounts set aside for neighborhood initiatives in fiscal
years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 may be utilized for any of
the foregoing purposes.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, $59,868,000 shall
be available for YouthBuild program activities authorized by
subtitle D of title IV of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act, as amended, and such activities shall
be an eligible activity with respect to any funds made
available under this heading: Provided, That local YouthBuild
programs that demonstrate an ability to leverage private and
nonprofit funding shall be given a priority for YouthBuild
funding: Provided further, That no more than ten percent of
any grant award may be used for administrative costs:
Provided further, That of the amount provided under this
paragraph, $2,000,000 shall be set aside and made available
for a grant to YouthBuild USA for capacity building for
community development and affordable housing activities as
specified in section 4 of the HUD Demonstration Act of 1993,
as amended.
Of the amount made available under this heading,
$77,000,000 shall be available for grants for the Economic
Development Initiative (EDI) to finance a variety of economic
development efforts.
community development loan guarantees program account
(including transfer of funds)
For the cost of guaranteed loans, $14,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2003, as authorized by section
108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to
exceed $608,696,000, notwithstanding any aggregate limitation
on outstanding obligations guaranteed in section 108(k) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended: Provided further, That in addition, for
administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan
program, $1,000,000, which shall be transferred to and merged
with the appropriation for ``Salaries and expenses''.
brownfields redevelopment
For Economic Development Grants, as authorized by section
108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,
as amended, for Brownfields redevelopment projects,
$25,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided, That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall make these grants available on a competitive basis as
specified in section 102 of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development Reform Act of 1989.
home investment partnerships program
(including transfer of funds)
For the HOME investment partnerships program, as
authorized under title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act, as amended, $1,996,040,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the
total amount provided under this heading, $200,000,000 shall
be available for the Downpayment Assistance Initiative,
subject to the enactment of subsequent legislation
authorizing such initiative: Provided further, That should
legislation authorizing such initiative not be enacted by
June 30, 2002, amounts designated in the previous proviso
shall become available for any such purpose authorized under
title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act, as amended: Provided further, That of the total amount
provided under this heading, up to $20,000,000 shall be
available for Housing Counseling under section 106 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968; and no less than
$17,000,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund
for the development and maintenance of information technology
systems.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. La Falce
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. LaFalce:
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--home investment partnerships program'',
after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the following:
``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--home investment partnerships program'',
after the dollar amount specified for the Downpayment
Assistance Initiative, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$100,000,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Community Planning
and Development--homeless assistance grants'', after the
aggregate dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased
by $122,600,000)''.
In title II, in the item relating to ``Management and
Administration--salaries and expenses'', after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$22,600,000)''.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) and I are offering jointly, would restore funding
cuts made in the bill to vital homeless prevention programs in order to
provide sufficient funding to renew expiring rental assistance grants
for the disabled, the mentally ill, veterans, and other individuals at
risk of homelessness.
One year ago, in a very bipartisan effort, Congress was forced to
take emergency action to reinstate funding for
[[Page H4711]]
the renewal of homeless Shelter Plus Care, and SHP permanent housing
grants which HUD did not renew as part of its continuum of care funding
process. This rescued thousands of our most vulnerable Americans from
losing their rental assistance and from becoming homeless. In my
district alone, almost 200 very low income individuals were threatened
with the loss of assistance and the loss of a home.
Learning from this experience, last year's House-passed VA-HUD
appropriations bill authorized renewal of expiring Shelter Plus Care
grants through the section 8 certificate fund, which would have
eliminated the risk of nonrenewal. In conference, the House and Senate
agreed to a similar approach establishing a separate $100 million
account for expiring Shelter Plus Care grants and directing HUD to
develop a mechanism to renew expiring SHP permanent housing grants.
Early this year, the administration's budget request was to continue
funding this separate renewal account in the amount of $100 million.
So it seems inexplicable to me that the majority has elected to cut
this $100 million renewal account. The effect is to reduce funding for
homeless programs by $100 million and put tens of thousands of
individuals at risk of losing their rental assistance.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness, which strongly supports
the amendment of the gentlewoman from California and myself, has
written that projects would be shut down in the best of circumstances
under this bill, and further pointed out that effective planning would
be impossible, and that local communities would be in grave doubt about
the ongoing viability of existing projects.
The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill has written in strong
support of our amendment and notes that the bill would have the effect
of undoing last year's farsighted decision by Congress to promote long-
term stable funding from HUD and threatened to disrupt successful local
programs.
This amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and
myself would avert this crisis by restoring the $100 million cut made
to the account to renew Shelter Plus Care grants and providing an
additional $22.6 million to renew all SHP permanent housing grants.
Specifically, the bill increases the homeless assistance grants account
by $122.6 million with the intent in conference to establish a reliable
source of renewals, either through the section 8 account or a separate
renewal account.
I understand that the majority will argue, as it does in their
committee report, that action is not needed at this time to address
renewal needs. The problem is that grants which expire on October 1,
2002 and later have no source of funding to renew such grants, except
to apply for funding under the fiscal 2002 continuum of care
competition. This is because the account established last year for
renewals may not be used to renew any grants expiring after fiscal year
2002.
This exposes tens of thousands of at-risk families to the same risk
of nonrenewal that we faced last year. However, even if such renewal
grants are approved under the competitive award process, many projects
will run out of money, and that is because the continuum of care awards
have historically been made in December, months after many of the
grants run out of money. It is for these reasons that all of the groups
that deal with these programs say that the bill does not adequately
address the problem of renewals.
I understand that the majority will argue, as it does in their
committee report, that action is not needed at this time to address
renewal needs. The problem is that grants which expire on October 1st,
2002 and later have no source of funding to renew such grants--except
to apply for funding under the FY 2002 continuum of care competition.
This is because the account established last year for renewals may not
be used to renew any grants expiring after fiscal year 2002.
Finally, I would like to briefly anticipate objections the majority
may have with our offset--the 50 percent reduction in new funding the
bill provides for the administration's proposed $200 million
Downpayment Assistance Initiative. $100 million is more than enough
money in the first year for a program that has not even been
authorized. If this program is so important, I would ask why the
Housing Subcommittee has not even held a hearing on this initiative.
It would also ironic be ironic if the majority insists on $200
million for this initiative, when its very first action on taking over
the House six years ago was to eliminate the $50 million in funding for
a virtually identical program, the National Homeownership Trust Act,
which also block granted funds to states for down payment assistance.
It is interesting to note Republican arguments at that time, that a
down payment block grant program authorizes nothing that is not
currently allowed under HOME and CDBG. That argument is still valid;
apparently the majority no longer wants to emphasize this fact. $6
billion is currently available under these two programs for states,
cities, and counties; so it is hard to argue that it is critically that
they need all of the $200 million for this new initiative.
Finally, our amendment cuts $22.6 million from the HUD Salaries and
Expense Account, still leaving a small increase compared to last year.
So I think we are faced with a simple choice: should we restore
homeless funding cuts in this bill, cuts which threaten tens of
thousands of individuals with the risk of homelessness--in order to
fully fund a new, untested, unauthorized, undebated initiative that is
already fully authorized under HOME and CDBG.
I think the choice is obvious. I urge support for the LaFalce-Lee
amendment.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of many amendments which goes after the
President's initiative to provide funds to low-income families to help
them to buy homes. As I mentioned earlier, we have about $16 billion in
the bill for section 8 housing vouchers, and I think there has been a
high demand for those, and it is a popular program. We have provided
additional funds for section 8. Some of those funds will be used in
pilot programs around the country to help to encourage low-income
families who are now renting to utilize those vouchers for
homeownership, to make monthly mortgage payments.
What the President has proposed, and Secretary Martinez has asked us
to support, is providing $200 million nationally so that those
individuals would be provided with the funds to make that down payment,
that big chunk of money that we all know we have to come up with in
order to make the initial mortgage deal. The section 8 housing vouchers
hopefully will provide the taxpayer and the owner with a very good
investment, a very good return on those section 8 vouchers.
So it is an important initiative, and it would be wrong to deny low-
income families moving from welfare to work and from tenantship to
ownership. Those funds are important. We need to keep those funds where
they are.
Now, as far as the homeless program where these funds would be
provided, let me just state my feeling. I feel very strongly that we
need to provide funds to help people who are homeless to find permanent
homes. My first action as city council president in Syracuse back in
1987 was to establish a homeless and housing vulnerable task force. It
has been working ever since. The need continues, but I think we have
done a very good job in central New York in providing homes for the
homeless.
We have provided over $1 billion in this bill for that purpose
nationwide. It is an increase, albeit a slight increase, over last
year. So the subcommittee's commitment and support for programs to
provide help to the homeless is in place.
As I believe the gentleman knows, all fiscal year 2002 renewal costs
for Shelter Plus Care programs are fully funded. Mr. Chairman, 2002 is
fully funded. The committee has already indicated it would address
fiscal year 2003 needs for this program in next year's bill. The
committee's action is identical to the way funding for these costs have
always been treated with the exception of 2001, and is identical to the
way all programs in this bill are treated.
This amendment proposes to treat this program differently than every
other program in this bill by using fiscal year 2002 funds to forward-
fund fiscal 2003 costs. To do this, the gentleman would cut $100
million out of this very important program, and those funds would be
divided amongst the States, including New York's, which would get a
large proportion of these funds, and also to 594 cities to help provide
affordable housing to members of our communities.
[[Page H4712]]
In addition, it would cause HUD to eliminate over 268 jobs by taking
$22 million from salaries and expenses.
{time} 2100
I believe the real intent behind the gentleman's agreement is to
ensure that fiscal year 2003 funding needs for this program do not
compete with any other program next year.
While I have sympathy for his desire to essentially create an
entitlement program, we cannot support this. We oppose it. It makes no
sense to cut funds to States and localities and eliminate HUD employees
to set aside funding that is not even needed next year for this
program. I would therefore urge rejection of the amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the LaFalce-Lee amendment really aims
to correct, as we heard, just one piece of this appropriations bill
that cuts $1.7 billion in budget authority from HUD's budget.
This amendment is also, incidentally, supported by the United States
Conference of Mayors. It restores funding for some of the most
vulnerable people in our society, those who are homeless and have the
special problem of dealing with mental illness, disabilities, or who
are turning around their lives in recovery from alcohol or drug abuse.
The Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program subsidizes
housing for people with these special challenges and also offers
continuum of care services for mental illness and other disabilities.
For example, in my home district in Alameda County of California, there
are approximately 13,000 homeless people and many more at risk for
homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, most of these people now more than ever are women and
children. In every one of our congressional districts there are
homeless people. Shelter Plus Care operates nationwide and helps keep
thousands of disabled and mentally ill people from walking the streets
at night untreated and with no place to live.
A California study found that supportive housing reduces emergency
room services and in-patient hospital stays by more than 57 percent. So
with this very small investment we can save taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars and provide humane treatment and shelter.
In our affordable housing debate, we talk about rental assistance, we
talk about home ownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income
individuals and families, which we all support. But our debate and our
initiatives are very devoid of housing issues as it relates to the
homeless, so this amendment really does recognize them as deserving of
our attention, also.
The offsets to this amendment still leave $100 million for this
unauthorized downpayment assistance program. We have not even held
hearings yet on this unauthorized program, so we have all supported
downpayment assistance programs, even when my colleagues on the other
side have not.
This offset leaves intact a net increase also in HUD salaries and
expenses over the last fiscal year. So, Mr. Chairman, there is really
nothing compassionate about the cuts to HUD, nearly $2 billion in cuts
made to fund the nearly $2 billion tax cut. That is not very
compassionate, if you ask me.
This bill actually cuts $493 million from public housing programs,
including the complete elimination of the Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program. It cuts $640 million from Section 8, $322 million
from Community Development Block Grants, $200 million from empowerment
zones, and $25 million from the Rural Housing and Economic Development
Program. So now with this, also, we are really seeing the real impact
in the cost of this Bush administration tax cut.
So I guess what I want to ask tonight is, will this Congress really
continue to place the burden of the tax cut on the back of the
homeless, the mentally ill, and the indigent? What type of a society
will we be if we approve this really I think disgraceful bill, if we do
not amend it tonight?
I ask Members for an aye vote on this amendment to restore and
support decent and humane treatment for our homeless and the mentally
ill, who also happen to live in the richest country in the world.
Finally, let me just say that States, counties, and cities will get
$6 billion in HOME and CDBG funds in fiscal year 2002 which can be used
to do all of the activities authorized under the downpayment housing
initiative.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by
my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). This amendment
unfortunately would cut in half the funding for an important initiative
proposed by the President to assist low-income families to purchase
their own homes.
With this money, he proposes to forward-fund the Shelter Plus Care
program. While I am a strong supporter of the Shelter Plus Care
program, it is not necessary to add additional funds to the program to
ensure that all contract renewals will occur. This funding would then
be used to forward-fund contracts in fiscal year 2003.
This would set an unnecessary precedent. I believe the money is put
much better to use in the downpayment assistance initiative next year.
We must do more to move low-income families into their own homes. This
is a critical need that we need to work to address. We know the
barriers for low-income families to purchase their own home, and one of
the largest is the downpayment.
I cannot understate the importance of this initiative. So many
Americans lack the opportunity to purchase a new home and spend a large
percentage of their income on their monthly rent. That can be the right
choice for some but not for all.
Most families greatly benefit from the purchase of their own homes. A
home helps a family create wealth through equity. It also invests them
into the community. In short, we help these families rise on the
economic ladder and build stronger communities in the process.
It is truly the American dream to own one's own home, a dream we must
make a reality for families who currently lack the opportunity to
realize this goal.
In addition, the LaFalce amendment cuts $23 million from the salary
and expense accounts from HUD. HUD is struggling with real problems
these days. They have shut down programs because their mission in
recent years has been so spread out that they have been incapable of
properly overseeing and implementing the programs that they administer.
Secretary Martinez has been working to refocus HUD on their true core
mission, one of providing and facilitating the creation of housing.
This is not the time to reduce the resources of HUD.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on
Financial Services, says he will oppose any amendment that cuts money
for the downpayment assistance program of the HOME program. In short,
let us work on the funding for the Shelter Plus Care program next year
when they really need the funding.
In the meantime, let us fully fund the President's downpayment
assistance initiative in this bill by joining me in defeating the
LaFalce amendment.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York has offered a very
thoughtful amendment, once again aimed at helping the people in our
society most in need of help.
Now, it is unfortunate that the motif of this bill comes through
again. It is so substantially underfunded because the tax cut deprived
us of these revenues that it makes a choice between two needy groups.
This choice is a little easier for this reason. The $200 million in
the HOME program which has, in this bill, been earmarked for a home
ownership program is an interesting example of retrograde behavior on
the part of my colleagues on the other side; not the only example, but
an interesting one. This one more clearly leads to a repudiation of
some of their own professed principles.
The HOME program has been a block grant, in effect. It gives monies
to the cities and the consortia with a great deal of flexibility. It
had been working very well, apparently too well for the Republican
leadership and the President. The President decided he wanted
[[Page H4713]]
to do something for poor people, but he did not want to actually spend
any new money on doing it.
The President went shopping for the poor, but he unfortunately did
not think when we were talking about poor people that he could go to a
store, because that requires money, and he gave that away in the tax
cut. So the President went to the recycling bin to see what he could
find for the poor people.
He found $200 million that had already been assigned to the poor
people. This great act of charity that comes forth Members should
understand is not additional money. It is an earmarking of $200 million
that had previously been sent to the mayors. I should not even say
recycling, because that assumes somebody else had discarded it. The
mayors had not discarded this. This is something the mayors had been
planning to spend.
Indeed, the $200 million for home ownership, again, it is not a new
money program. It is $200 million for home ownership taken out of a pot
of money that had previously been given as a block grant to the mayors.
So it is putting a categorical stamp, to a certain extent, on what had
been a block grant program, which the Republicans will do from time to
time when they want to, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.
The mayors, the National Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities,
do not like this earmark, so the $200 million here is over the
objection of the people who have been the administrators of the program
and the recipients of the program.
If indeed this amendment were ultimately not to pass, and of course
the way we are working it tonight we will not know that for a while,
probably until a couple of days until we have these roll calls, or
maybe later, I will propose we will cancel out the $200 million
earmarks and leave it where the mayors and League of Cities want it to
be.
In other words, I think we should go back to the block grant and
repudiate this faux gift that comes from the President. He is making a
gift of somebody else's money for home ownership.
But, on the merits, we talk about the American dream. Let us first
try to alleviate the American nightmare. Let us first try to show a
response to the poorest of the poor, the homeless. Can there be in this
wealthy society anything less morally tolerable than homeless children?
Can anyone let any other program go by while children are still
homeless?
The gentleman from New York gives us a chance to remedy that
situation, to a certain extent, by taking money that is now being
assigned to programs that the people who run the programs do not want.
Granted, their first choice would be to have the money on an
unrestricted basis, but the way it now stands, that is why we have,
from so many mayors, support for this.
The President is also a bad one from that standpoint. HOME has been a
very flexible, very well-run block grant. The notion of now letting
conservative politicians look generous, not by providing any additional
funding for low-income people but by putting restrictions on what has
heretofore been a successful, relatively unrestricted set of programs
geared to local needs, ought to be rejected.
So I hope this amendment is adopted. If this amendment is not
adopted, I will then be offering next the amendment, and we will have
the choice when the roll calls come to put all that money at least back
into the unrestricted pot.
Let us not allow a situation in which the President plays Santa Claus
with money that really should have gone to the mayors and which the
mayors would rather see go to alleviating the homeless than not.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is horrible to be in a time of tight budgets and
deficits. I have been through that in this Congress. But, of course,
that is not the case today. But from the debate tonight on the floor,
we would think that that was the case.
Earlier we heard, well, we could not afford to improve and enhance
veterans' health care. There is just not enough money. We had to make
tough choices. They had to make copayments and be deprived of needed
health care.
We could not afford more money for the YouthBuild program to help
reform youth, get them on a straight path, and build low-income
housing.
Now we are being told we have to choose between the downpayment
initiative and the Shelter Plus Care program. I thought we had a
multitrillion dollar looming surplus. I thought that was why the
Republicans jammed through a $1 trillion tax cut, particularly heavily
oriented towards those who earn over $273,000 a year. Most of whom are
not homeless, I expect.
Mr. Chairman, 3.5 million people are likely to experience
homelessness during a given year in the United States, and 45 percent
of those people will be employed. They do not meet the stereotypes.
Thirty-nine percent are children, as mentioned by the gentleman from
Massachusetts before me, and 27 percent are disabled.
One-third of families currently requesting shelter have to be turned
away for lack of room, families trying to stay together. The family
values party does not want to help them stay together because they are
not putting the money out to do the job.
I am especially concerned in light of the committee's decision to
increase the permanent housing set-aside, the 35 percent. Just last
year the permanent housing set-aside was raised to 30 percent of all
funds under McKinney-Vento. That last-minute change does not sound like
it means anything except a percent here, in Washington, D.C.; a billion
here, a billion there. But the last-minute change of Congress caused
HUD to reprioritize their grants, and new transitional housing projects
for homeless families were left on the chopping block.
In fact, in my district alone, Douglas County lost $126,458, a county
with a very high unemployment rate that has been hit hard because of
the recession in the timber industry. Curry County lost $113,637.
Benton, Lincoln, and Lynn lost $271,518.
Other States lost money because of this additional set-aside.
{time} 2115
We should not be forcing these sorts of choices; $1.3 million all
together for rural Oregon counties and $1 million for rural continuum
of care.
We do not have to make that choice. If I just went back and pulled
out the budget and the rosy scenario and all the things that have been
used here on the floor to pass the tax cut that favors those who earn
over $273,000 a year, we would find that if we just applied those same
assumptions and rosy scenarios, or God forbid we cut back on the big
tax breaks for those at the very top, we could afford all these and we
would not have to make these choices.
So I reject what is being offered on the majority side, saying, oh
well, we just cannot afford that this year, maybe next year; and, well,
we have to make these tough choices. These are choices that need to be
made to hold together the social fabric of this society, to hold
together homeless families, to help the 39 percent of homeless kids,
and the 27 percent who are disabled. We, the greatest society on Earth,
can afford to do this little bit.
I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee-LaFalce
amendment. According to HUD, over 10,000 San Franciscans are currently
homeless. Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program permanent
housing grants are a critical component of our nation's response to
this growing crisis. These programs must be preserved, and this
amendment provides the necessary funding.
Supportive housing programs link employment, substance abuse, mental
health, and other supportive services to permanent supportive housing
for chronically ill homeless individuals and families. Studies show
that these programs are very successful. Tenants of supportive housing
use fewer emergency room and inpatient hospital services, increase
their earned income and rate of employment, and reduce their dependence
on public assistance.
The claim that Shelter Plus Care does not need funding in FY 2002,
and that such action would constitute ``forward funding'' is untrue.
Failure to provide renewal funding will result in a significant
shortfall for Shelter Plus Care Programs nationwide, and a loss of
approximately 260 units of housing in my district.
I urge my colleagues to support the Lee/LaFalce amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce).
[[Page H4714]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 230, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 280]
AYES--189
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--230
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Blumenauer
Cubin
Hall (OH)
Hutchinson
Istook
Linder
Lipinski
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Radanovich
Spence
Stark
{time} 2149
Messrs. McHUGH, KINGSTON, GUTKNECHT, GILLMOR, and PORTMAN changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RAHALL and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, after consulting with the committee that has
jurisdiction on the floor this evening, we have determined that it is
possible, with cooperation from our Members, for us to take the five
votes that have been ordered thus far this evening in just a few more
moments. Those five votes would be the last votes that Members would be
asked to cast this evening. We would ask that the committee continue to
work through title II this evening, with an understanding that any
votes that are ordered on title II will be taken up at 9 o'clock in the
morning when we resume the bill, and having completed the work through
title II should make it possible for us, with good cooperation, to
complete consideration of this bill by 2 o'clock tomorrow, our normal
Friday getaway time.
The committee has been very cooperative. The committee is to be
commended for their good spirit and their efforts to make life better
for the Members. I should, however, advise the Members at this time
that if we are unable to finish the work by 2 o'clock tomorrow, and
everybody that has examined the amendments that are before us is in
agreement that we should be able to do so comfortably given the time
agreements that we can make, but if that is impossible, we will
continue tomorrow to work beyond our normal Friday getaway time until
such time as the bill is completed, and we will not leave until the
bill is completed.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, on a bit lighter note for all of our
colleagues, tonight happens to be a great event that you may not be
aware of, but tonight happens to be the 20th anniversary of Mike Oxley
being a Member of this great institution, having been elected in a
special election in 1981. I think we all owe Mike Oxley a great round
of applause for his 20th anniversary.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished leader for
yielding.
I question the gentleman's estimate about when we can finish this
bill even if we were to proceed here tonight. There is a lot of
material here. He might be right, he might be wrong, but my judgement
is he is probably underestimating the amount of time it is
[[Page H4715]]
going to take to finish this bill. I would not expect to be able to be
finished by 2 o'clock tomorrow.
Mr. ARMEY. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Let me just say,
Mr. Chairman, that would be unfortunate for so many Members who had
planned to leave by 2, but it has been my experience in this body that
when we all work together and pull in the same direction, in good humor
and cheer, that we can meet our goal. I fear we must try. Our schedule
for next week is, quite frankly, very exciting; and we simply cannot
afford to let this bill hold over for next week.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I understand Members' desires to leave, but
there is a constitutional responsibility to debate seriously important
issues. I am the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity. Under the schedule proposed by the majority
leader, we would be debating much of these important housing issues
beginning sometime after 11 o'clock tonight until the early hours with
no votes. I cannot agree to that, and I must inform Members that there
will be no assurance of not having votes. There are votes on appeals
from the chair. There are motions to rise. The problem is that
important issues have to be discussed. We have all week next week. I am
ready to work, but I will not agree, and Members should not expect to
leave at 11 o'clock while we debate these important issues and not have
votes.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts has made
his point. The fact is he can, in fact, delay everything we try to do
tonight and prevent us from completing our work. In that event we would
have to work through the weekend.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Foley); amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler); amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis); amendment No. 22 offered by the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez); amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Foley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 107,
noes 311, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 281]
AYES--107
Ackerman
Akin
Baird
Barr
Bilirakis
Bonilla
Boswell
Boyd
Bryant
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Coble
Condit
Costello
Crane
Crowley
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Evans
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Larsen (WA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCarthy (NY)
Mica
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Ney
Otter
Pascrell
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Putnam
Ramstad
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Sandlin
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Stearns
Strickland
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thurman
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Weiner
Wexler
NOES--311
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Bass
Blumenauer
Cubin
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hunter
Istook
Linder
Lipinski
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Northup
Spence
Stark
{time} 2214
Mr. PICKERING and Mr. Langevin changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. FLETCHER, SCHROCK, SESSIONS and ENGLE changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 281, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 281, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, of rule XVIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each
amendment on which
[[Page H4716]]
the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 284, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 282]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Carson (IN)
Clay
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Harman
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tiberi
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--284
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Blumenauer
Combest
Cubin
Hall (OH)
Linder
Lipinski
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Spence
Stark
{time} 2222
Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. CONYERS, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. RUSH and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 60,
noes 360, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 283]
AYES--60
Andrews
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeGette
Doyle
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Gephardt
Gutierrez
Hilliard
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lampson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lucas (KY)
McCarthy (NY)
McKinney
Mink
Myrick
Napolitano
Owens
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Ross
Rush
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott
Shays
Solis
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson (CA)
Wynn
NOES--360
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
[[Page H4717]]
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Berman
Blumenauer
Cubin
Hall (OH)
Hilleary
Linder
Lipinski
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Otter
Spence
Stark
{time} 2229
Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BAIRD, and Mr. DOGGETT changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Velazquez
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 209, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 284]
AYES--216
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--209
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Castle
Chambliss
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Scarborough
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Blumenauer
Cubin
Hall (OH)
Linder
Lipinski
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Spence
Stark
{time} 2239
Mr. HILLEARY, Mr. STEARNS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Mr.
ISAKSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. LaFalce
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)
[[Page H4718]]
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124,
noes 300, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 285]
AYES--124
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller, George
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Solis
Strickland
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
NOES--300
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Blumenauer
Cubin
Hall (OH)
Linder
Lipinski
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Spence
Stark
{time} 2247
Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that there be no
more procedural votes this evening; that the committee be allowed to
work with the Members in question on title II of the bill, without
interruption; and as they complete that work this evening, any votes
that are ordered on amendments be postponed until 9 a.m. tomorrow
morning.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair already has the authority to postpone votes
on amendments but not on procedural motions.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there be no more
procedural votes this evening and that the committee be allowed to
continue its work on title II.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee of the Whole cannot entertain that
request.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II be
considered as read and open for amendment at any time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. FRANK. I object.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is clear and obvious to me that the
Members of this body cannot work tonight effectively and make progress
on this bill. That is unfortunate. Obviously, it will delay our
departure tomorrow. But in consideration of the mood that we find on
the floor this evening,
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, 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. 2620)
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, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________